Crimminal CHARGES Laid ..... AGAINST Media FoR ..."PROMOTING PROSTITUTION" !!!!

[canada-man]

The Avails provision has been struck from the criminal code, by a unanimous decision by the SCC. Harper and company can draw up such legislation till their faces turn blue, it won't be admissable to be even heard in Parliament. Their only hope is to turn public opinion against sexworkers by ramming the exploitation song down people's throats, but our side is acting loudly too. SPOC, Maggies, activist sexworkers and clients are using social media to promote sexwork as real work.

The Nordic model WILL fail if insitiuted in Canada, because aside from the laws, Sweden also has a butt-load of social services designed to guarantee sex-worker safety. Even with those safe-guards in place, a sexworker died last year. Canada has no such social guarantees.

The cons are spinning their wheels on this. They're basically screwed, due to their own policies. Had Harper not cut so much funding towards women's services, they might have a chance at passing the Nordic model, but they don't. They'll have to think of something, and thinking is not their forte.

ditto

 

[BlueLaser]

OK, how far would this law go?

Definitely, it would apply to pimps, who would profit by finding clients. Would it apply to media? Don't think so because the law mentions 'persons', not corporate entities. Would it apply to a driver, bodyguard, live-in or receptionist? No, because they would not be promoting prostitution. It would be just like paying the plumber for fixing a leak in the SP's house. It's a big change from the broader
'living off the avails', because with the latter, any money made by the SP and given to a person who does work for them, like the plumber, would be guilty of living off the SP's sex-industry revenue. So I think that the new law would be limited to exploiters and facilitators. It seems to open up the possibility of legalizing prostitution, but with limits.

All corporations are persons under the law in Canada.

From the Criminal Code of Canada's "INTERPRETATION" section:

“every one”, “person” and “owner”, and similar expressions, include Her Majesty and an organization;

But it's essentially enshrined everywhere. In cases where only a physical person like you and me are intended, the term used is "natural person". Don't google that too much or read too much into it, or you'll find yourself in "sovereign/free man on the land/we're absolutely batshit insane" territory where people think courts are boats and birth certificates have something to do with unloading goods, and if you separate yourself from a corporate entity you never have to pay debts or taxes or follow the law again. Which as you can imagine means a lot of them are sitting in jail.

 

[wilbur]

All corporations are persons under the law in Canada.

From the Criminal Code of Canada's "INTERPRETATION" section:

“every one”, “person” and “owner”, and similar expressions, include Her Majesty and an organization;

But it's essentially enshrined everywhere. In cases where only a physical person like you and me are intended, the term used is "natural person". Don't google that too much or read too much into it, or you'll find yourself in "sovereign/free man on the land/we're absolutely batshit insane" territory where people think courts are boats and birth certificates have something to do with unloading goods, and if you separate yourself from a corporate entity you never have to pay debts or taxes or follow the law again. Which as you can imagine means a lot of them are sitting in jail.

Ok then, point taken. Still, it says 'in return for payment'. So that means CL and BP would be off the hook because no money would be exchanged for advertising. It woudn't prevent SP's from advertising their wares on their own websites. As far as the ISP being charged for hosting a paid site, I believe that they could no more be charged than Bell for facilitating a transaction on the telephone.

In law, the intent is also important. Clearly, this is aimed at eliminating pimps and their exploitation, not at nailing discussion boards that do advertising. But even if that's the case, a board like this one would simply rely on advertising not related to sex-work, or simply base itself offshore. Practically, such an extreme interpretatioin wouldn't work.

 

[GPIDEAL]

A person? Can that also apply to a cooperation? If someone sells ad space to a prostitute are they responsible for promoting? Very vague indeed. The lawyers will make out like bandits as usual.

Sure! Person under the Income Tax Act includes corporations. Individual means an actual person in the ordinary sense of the word, under the ITA. I would think the Harper laws will have a broad definition of 'person', let's hope not. This is outrageous!

“person”
« personne »
“person”, or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes any corporation, and any entity exempt, because of subsection 149(1), from tax under Part I on all or part of the entity’s taxable income and the heirs, executors, liquidators of a succession, administrators or other legal representatives of such a person, according to the law of that part of Canada to which the context extends;


“individual”
« particulier »
“individual” means a person other than a corporation;

 

[BlueLaser]

Ok then, point taken. Still, it says 'in return for payment'. So that means CL and BP would be off the hook because no money would be exchanged for advertising. It woudn't prevent SP's from advertising their wares on their own websites. As far as the ISP being charged for hosting a paid site, I believe that they could no more be charged than Bell for facilitating a transaction on the telephone.

In law, the intent is also important. Clearly, this is aimed at eliminating pimps and their exploitation, not at nailing discussion boards that do advertising. But even if that's the case, a board like this one would simply rely on advertising not related to sex-work, or simply base itself offshore. Practically, such an extreme interpretatioin wouldn't work.

Yes, it seems that under this specific cited clause, that's the case. But I expect that, if this really is a snippet from the act, they will have provisions that cover other circumstances as well.

 

[drlove]

...But then, the entire title of this thread is misleading too. It implies that the media have been charged, but they haven't. You're just suggesting they could be under new laws which may or may not pass...

The thing is, since Harper has a majority there is no need to worry about whether a new law will "pass" or not; They can ram through anything they want, even if it's unconstitutional, hence the Nordic model.

 

[FAST]

Their in the same club,...

A person? Can that also apply to a cooperation? If someone sells ad space to a prostitute are they responsible for promoting? Very vague indeed. The lawyers will make out like bandits as usual.

Any time judges are part of the decision making,...lawyers make will out like bandits,...and,...the description fits quite well,...don't you think,...???

FAST

 

[SchlongConery]

Yes, it seems that under this specific cited clause, that's the case. But I expect that, if this really is a snippet from the act, they will have provisions that cover other circumstances as well.

Nothing to worry about at all.... this is NOT any sort of draft of anything at all.