Another Ontario court ruling UPHOLDING Bill C-36

[Jenesis]

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. .

But we are taking about basic human “rights”. Not laws. To which I also don’t know if any that currently say you have a right to sex. If there was, you would legally be able to purchase it.

You are free to show me in the CCC, The Charter, the by-laws in any jurisdiction, or anything remotely legal that states just like you have a human right to freedom and shit, you have a human “right” to sex.

Not past laws, not the possibly of changing in the future, I’m talking right now - show me a law that says you have a legal right to sex.

 

[escortsxxx]

But we are taking about “rights”. Not laws. To which I also don’t know if any that currently say you have a right to sex. If there was, you would legally be able to purchase it.

You are free to show me in the CCC, The Charter, the by-laws in any jurisdiction, or anything remotely legal that states just like you have the right to freedom and shit, you have a “right” to sex.

Not past laws, not the possibly of changing in the future, I’m talking right now - show me a law that says you have a legal right to sex.

Human rights vs rights you are correct, there is no direct state human right for sex, but European courts have argued that is is fundemendal human right. It is why sex is provided by some health care systems. But this is not in law anywhere that i know of, just legal speculation.

Even looking just at the right issue, not human right issue your probably technically right under current legal philosophy. My knowledge is from the Greenspan error and is limited.

The charter of rights are fundamental rights. Before 1982 it did not exist. Yet people still had "rights" which are from the laws we had then and currently.
The charter is the supposed to be (and is not since we have the with standing clause) the supreme law of the land, and thus the fundamental laws of the land.

Tort law for example is all about rights - if you buy a meal and its awful you DO Not have the right not pay, in fact the cook has a right to demand you pay and to receive payment no matter how bad the meal. Business practice for pr reasons often ignores this right/law.
There are variety of law books where precedents are made, and the judge creates rights for x or y party explicit but usually is implicit. Divorce laws imply spouses have the right to sex, and with holding sex is breach of contract.

Example: If X pay B to mow his lawn, X has the right to have the lawn mowed OR get his money back and compensation for breach of contact. Sure, in Tort you can not make anyone do any service, but you can fine them (damages) for not fulfilling there contract. In the case of engagement rings it is is a serious office not to return an engagement ring if the marriage does not happen or is cancelled.

"When a couple become engaged many people might be surprised to learn that their agreement to marry is regarded by the common law as a legally binding contract. If one party wishes to withdraw from the engagement, they do so at the risk of being liable for damages in an action for breach of promise of marriage. This project examines whether it is still necessary or desirable to retain such an action in British Columbia."

Breach of Promise of Marriage (1983) - British Columbia Law Institute

When a couple become engaged many people might be surprised to learn that their agreement to marry is regarded by the common law as a legally binding contract. If one party wishes to withdraw from the engagement, they do so at the risk of being liable for damages in an action for breach of promise

www.bcli.org

As sex is part of the contract, refusing to have sex and breaking up such a contract can result in damages to the injured party.

In the united states a rape victim was forced to cheer her rapist since she was a cheerleader for the rapist team.

Mandatory cheers for an accused rapist

This Texas case involving a cheerleader and sexual assult highlights important issues for clinicians working with young clients.

www.apa.org

In Canada a women was able to get rid of her husband because he failed to get an erection and failure of "marital duties." :

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/annulment-impotence-erection-marriage-1.5737738

The wife had the right to sex, failure to provide sex caused a breech of contract and thus no marriage. However courts have ruled differently at different times.

I do not know the status of the report by The Law Commission of Canada about a decade ago called Beyond Conjugality, which suggested review of all existing relationship recognition laws so currently sex might not be an issue of right in marriage at all - thought the 2020 BC ruling seems to indicate otherwise.

Beyond Conjugality: Recognizing and Supporting Close Personal Adult Relationships

In this Report, the Law Commission of Canada reviews the degree to which laws and policies regulate adult personal relationships by reference to the category of

papers.ssrn.com

And certainly I am not even close to knowing the law and its likely you have far more knowledge of the subject as my knowledge comes moslty form the Good Wife a great drama.

 

[krazyplayer]

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.

There is no right to sell or purchase sexual services under the Protection of Communities & Exploited Persons Act. The transaction is now illegal but there is an exemption from prosecution for someone selling her own services. It is illegal though.

 

[escortsxxx]

There is no right to sell or purchase sexual services under the Protection of Communities & Exploited Persons Act. The transaction is now illegal but there is an exemption from prosecution for someone selling her own services. It is illegal though.

The law is illegal under the charter - at least many agree it to be so - a challange will have to happen to see. But as it stands now yes its illegal.

 

[Jenesis]

There is no right to sell or purchase sexual services under the Protection of Communities & Exploited Persons Act. The transaction is now illegal but there is an exemption from prosecution for someone selling her own services. It is illegal though.

I have an individual right to sell my body but you don’t have a right to purchase it. That is why I have an exemption. Because I have a human right to choice over my body.

That is the only point I was making before it got WAY over board.

There will never be a “human right” to receive sex and therefore it will never change legally for the purchase on sex.

My only point was about individual human rights under the charter. Nothing more? Nothing less

 

[escortsxxx]

I have an individual right to sell my body but you don’t have a right to purchase it. That is why I have an exemption. Because I have a human right to choice over my body.

That is the only point I was making before it got WAY over board.

There will never be a “human right” to receive sex and therefore it will never change legally for the purchase on sex.

My only point was about individual human rights under the charter. Nothing more? Nothing less

Well there is not explicit right . However there are several implicit rights such as the right to religion. If any religion has these practices then it would be protected - unless the court deemed them in conflict with other charter rights. There are religions that have the buying and selling of sex as religious practice so in theory they would be protected,

However in practice you would be right. polygamy should be protected under the charter for several reasons, including religion but has been struck down from a perverted interpenetration of the charter -polygamy among adults should be protected but the courts rules that it is by default not an adult to adult practice.
Selling sex and such would also be interpreted by judges with strong discrimination in the sexual area.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/polygamy-conviction-bc-winston-blackmore-james-oler-1.4569158

 

[lomotil]

I have an individual right to sell my body but you don’t have a right to purchase it. That is why I have an exemption. Because I have a human right to choice over my body.

That is the only point I was making before it got WAY over board.

There will never be a “human right” to receive sex and therefore it will never change legally for the purchase on sex.

My only point was about individual human rights under the charter. Nothing more? Nothing less

Prostitutes have immunity from prosecution under the anemic and worthless Bill C36 because the Harper PC operation was compelled to craft a new law regarding prostitution and they felt that those selling sex were exploited and helpless victims of circumstances beyond their control and deserved to be rescued ( not necessarily protected) and given immunity from prosecution . Those lawmakers did not ever intend to imply or enforce the notion that it is a ”human right” to be a prostitute.

Anyway in 2021 in Toronto there are more brothels open tomorrow then there are days in a year where those selling sex and those purchasing can do business with 99.99% chance of any legal worries.

 

[Jenesis]

Prostitutes have immunity from prosecution under the anemic and worthless Bill C36 because the Harper PC operation was compelled to craft a new law regarding prostitution and they felt that those selling sex were exploited and helpless victims of circumstances beyond their control and deserved to be rescued ( not necessarily protected) and given immunity from prosecution . Those lawmakers did not ever intend to imply or enforce the notion that it is a ”human right” to be a prostitute.

Anyway in 2021 in Toronto there are more brothels open tomorrow then there are days in a year where those selling sex and those purchasing can do business with 99.99% chance of any legal worries.

It is my individual right to body. That is what I said. Not that I have a human right to be a hooker. Read what I wrote.

I said there was no “human right” to by sex. I never said I had “human right” to sell sex.

 

[Soccersweeper]

People have a right to associate and express themselves sexually. These are fundamental rights that predate our written laws and any court challenge of criminalizing buying sex will almost certainly succeed for these reasons alone. As the Charter drafter famously put it, the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. Moreover, allowing peopke to sell something but criminalizing buyers creates a legal oxymoron that cannot be justified. It's basically entrapment by different means.

 

[onomatopoeia]

An incomplete list of persons who do not have a RIGHT to have sex:

Prison inmates who do not have a spouse/ significant other partner.

Certain patients in forensic units of mental health hospitals.

Certain parolees previously convicted of sexual offenses.

Catholic clergy, or anyone who has formally sworn an oath of celibacy, for one reason or another.

Certain individuals who have contagious diseases.

Certain married men whose spouses do not want to have sex.

Unmarried members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Certain individuals who are mentally challenged, or not mentally competent,

People in comas, or other states of unconsciousness.

Ugly guys with no money.

 

[chardacerjade]

So what happens now. Will they actually start arresting the clients. Why aren't they clapping down on the regular Joe? I haven't seen any news articles of any actual arrest. What happens now will they start to enforce it. I don't think clients has to worry

But has any clients or anyone in this forum actually been stopped/questioned/charged yet, that you heard.