I agree that 'security' is an easier argument, although if they were to criminalize selling, it could be a different kind of argument.
(Did you mean 'precedent' as opposed to 'president'? That seems like auto-correct or type error.)
c36
- Thread starter sockobuw
- Start date
(Did you mean 'precedent' as opposed to 'president'? That seems like auto-correct or type error.)
Oh god I hope not.Unfortunately that is only an opinion. It will take somebody bringing the matter before the SCC. It will then be up to that body to determine if indeed C-36 goes against their previous instructions. Until that decision is made (which may take years, or maybe even never) crown attorneys are free to treat C-36 as a legitimate part of the criminal code, and prosecute any individuals charged under the provisions of the law. Conversely, prosecuting attorneys may feel that C-36 is a lame duck, and any convictions will eventually be thrown out, and therefore, it is a futile waste of resources to prosecute cases involving C-36, so they just won't bother.
Additionally, opinions regarding the validity of C-36 may not be consistent across provincial jurisdictions, so in some provinces there may be prosecutions, while in others, the law may be unenforced.
We will have to wait and see how the whole thing plays out. Maybe our grandchildren will finally resolve the matter.
I meant that they are not automatically illegal after C-36, but your point about whether 'body rub' is a sexual service yet to be defined is precise but still speculative. At the end of the day, what actually happens and whether it is contrary to any by-law or other law requires proof.More precisely, a licensed body rub is not necessarily a brothel. What happens vs. what is licensed to happen aren't necessarily the same.
Anyhoo, this position is valid until the definition of "sexual service" is clarified. At least until then, BRP's can assert that they do not provide a sexual service.
The police who also get funding from the City are also pimps then.So for the greater partiality and without prejudice, I can only conclude if what you say is true, then the City of Toronto has been and continues to be living off the avails of prostitution since bill C36 is not yet law. Once C36 becomes law then it would appear that after the first john is brought to orgasm ( method not withstanding, oral-genital, manual-genital, genital-genital, genital-anal etc.) in an establishment that the city collects an annual licence fee from such as a registered massage parlour or holistic spa, that the john, the business owner and the City of Toronto will be in violation of C36. So in effect, The City of Toronto is the biggest pimp in Canada, a pimp with inherent immunity. Bill C36 targets and kneecap the low hanging fruit only. Can someone please tell me if my aforementioned view is cockeyed? Revelations...
I am in partial agreement with your argument here. The best bet for a win in such a legal case is to pick the most likely argument (in this case violence against women). This was done and it was actually won. Despite this, the Reform-Conservatives then swiftly concocted the steaming pile that was Bill C-36.From what I have come to understand (and correct me if I'm wrong) constitutional challenges generally roll with the easiest win. Meaning whatever portion or clause or charge is most likely to be deemed unconstitutional is the portion they fight with.
I believe that this fight will never finally end until the SC of Canada rules that consensual sex between competent adults is a guaranteed right regardless of whether any form of remuneration is or is not involved.
I agree. Conservative politicians, SWERFS, and conservative religious groups think they have the right to force their views on others. The courts are the only protection from this.I am in partial agreement with your argument here. The best bet for a win in such a legal case is to pick the most likely argument (in this case violence against women). This was done and it was actually won. Despite this, the Reform-Conservatives then swiftly concocted the steaming pile that was Bill C-36.
I believe that this fight will never finally end until the SC of Canada rules that consensual sex between competent adults is a guaranteed right regardless of whether any form of remuneration is or is not involved.
Sex worker safety is a proven-valid argument. But the wrinkle is that the sex worker won't be the accused under the offensive law. Sex worker advocates will first have to get amicus curiae status and then make its arguments of the indirect harms of the law.I am in partial agreement with your argument here. The best bet for a win in such a legal case is to pick the most likely argument (in this case violence against women). This was done and it was actually won. Despite this, the Reform-Conservatives then swiftly concocted the steaming pile that was Bill C-36.
I believe that this fight will never finally end until the SC of Canada rules that consensual sex between competent adults is a guaranteed right regardless of whether any form of remuneration is or is not involved.
Yet, the violence against women argument also takes you down a certain path. What's the next move, and the one after that? What's the end game? Are we so sure that we can win the war with this strategy? I'm not.
We can't be playing checkers. We need to play chess.
