Good News: Conservatives set to replace prostitution laws to help sex workers

[freedom3]

The Conservatives have to write laws that are consistent with the CCC. The Nordic model would be easily struck down. Making prostitution illegal would also be struck down. A federal election is around the corner, this could be interesting or maybe the Conservatives will ask for an extension until after the election. The CCC does not give special status based on gender, laws to protect woman only will be problematic as there are male and transgendered prostitutes also.

Of course the Charter does. Do you think the women of Canada would allow a Charter to pass if it didn't give them special status?


15(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

 

[anon1]

The Harper gov't recently announced $11 million anti-cannabis program. There will surely be similar funding for an anti-prostitution program to promote the laws they pass. And much of it will be targeted against us, the evil and exploitative purchasers of sex.

+1.....

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

I think this is a positive development. For Peter Mackay to be "not entirely convinced" of the suitability of the Nordic model for Canada

Yeah, its positive so long as MacKay really did say that and wasnt made up or misquoted by The Sun

 

[Mable]

I am hoping that the Feds will distinguish between different types of prostitution. I do not think anyone, including members here, would be against the industry that does exploit underage girls, deals in trafficking and otherwise abuses or manipulates women. Legislation could easily be written that protects this class. But there is another class, that being those very intelligent, sophisticated, savy ladies who do this on consent, know what they are doing and even enjoy it for various obvious reasons. What I fear is that the government continues the status quo and insists that ALL providers are of the same class and consequently will fuck up any process in the futrue.

 

[lomotil]

Try Criminal Code of Canada.

I stand corrected. I should have said that Conservative have to write CCC (Canadian Criminal Code) laws which will agree with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the recent SCC decision.

 

[fmahovalich]

Thankfully....the Conservatives are in power ........ and will hopefully get it right!!!

After all, it was the LIBERAL authored law that was struck down by the SCC.

 

[pocahottie]

Thanks Pocahottie

Anytime!

 

[Lovehobby]

I suspect we will get the Nordic model. It will be challenged, probably overturnrd but they will have convinced their base the did everything possible to keep it illegal. They will only care if they survive the next election.

 

[TeasePlease]

The Nordic model would be easily struck down. Making prostitution illegal would also be struck down.

Why do you say that? What is it about the Nordic model that offends the charter? Likewise, why is the purchase of sex a constitutional right?

 

[NHFL]

Likewise, why is the purchase of sex a constitutional right?

I cannot answer your question, but I hope that sex, in general, is a constitutional right... Whether purchased or not. We have been operating that way for a ling time.

Also for those who complained about the now struck-down laws being Liberal, I quote the most famous Liberal there ever was saying in 1967 "there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation... what's done in private between adults doesn't concern the Criminal Code".

Though Trudeau was talking about abortion in 1967, I would hope this philosophy still stands today.

 

[afterhours]

There are OVER A DOZEN LAWS that deal specifically with PIMPING, TRAFFICKING and UNDERAGE sex work .... why do we need laws that are written in such a way that they are broad enough to affect the WILLING sex worker also?

because our average voter gets her ideas about what is right or wrong from american TV

 

[Toronto`s Finest]

Perhaps more sex workers should have been there to interrupt Fry , get in her face & get on camera/TV ..... stating she is full if SHIT!!!

 

[afterhours]

wouldn't that be a convenient excuse ...

it's not an excuse , it's an underlying cause. To rule the people in modern times you brainwash them via TV and then everything else flows from there.
You don't want your taxpayers to be confused about moral issues either, or next thing you know they will bring in less taxes.
If US system works well for them and even France went anti-john, what are the chances that Canada would embrace what others found to be punishable?

 

[afterhours]

because we just struck down three laws that force sex workers to chose between safety and freedom. The answer is surely not to write new laws that force us to again make that choice. That would result in the same fight in the future, to the same high court. Costly indeed, especially if those laws were again struck down as infringement on charter rights.

I didn't mean to disqualify your point, the US media sure doesn't help. But uneducated, narrow minded Canadians sure don't help either.

Costly to whom? The only cost the government is concerned with is the cost of not being elected. They will spare no expense to avoid that.

 

[TeasePlease]

I cannot answer your question, but I hope that sex, in general, is a constitutional right... Whether purchased or not. We have been operating that way for a ling time.

Also for those who complained about the now struck-down laws being Liberal, I quote the most famous Liberal there ever was saying in 1967 "there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation... what's done in private between adults doesn't concern the Criminal Code".

Though Trudeau was talking about abortion in 1967, I would hope this philosophy still stands today.

The Nordic model won't achieve what the first and most important goal behind the SCC ruling ... to keep sex workers safe.

These three laws were struck down because they put us at risk. Setting up our clients to be arrested for patronizing us doesn't nothing to keep us safe, in fact in endangers us more because we will have to "hide" ... forcing us further underground to keep our clients safe.

There are OVER A DOZEN LAWS that deal specifically with PIMPING, TRAFFICKING and UNDERAGE sex work .... why do we need laws that are written in such a way that they are broad enough to affect the WILLING sex worker also?

I agree that that is the argument. Yet, there are two fundamental premises upon which those arguments are based:

1. "Willing" participants: How many are willing? How many are being coerced, if only subtly? What if the political view is that ALL sexwork is inherently exploitative? Guess what? That's what the Cons believe.

2. The sanctity of the "three laws" assumes that prostitution is legal. If the activity itself becomes illegal, all bets are off.

Also, the SCC ruling wasn't based upon keeping sex workers safe. The underlying principal is to keep Canadians safe should they choose to participate in a lawful activity.

The logic of your argument about being forced underground is also flawed. My 3 year old uses the same argument when I hide the cookies, thus "forcing" him to climb shelves in the pantry and get into all the places he shouldn't be! Think about that.

 

[afterhours]

Why can't we adopt the western Australian model instead?

just googled it and found this: http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/fem...out-prostitution-trafficking-and-nordic-model

it has answers to all your/our questions and more

 

[TeasePlease]

1) agreed there are indeed some, maybe many, who are coerced even subtly. The laws need to deal with that specifically.

2) The three laws were struck down because prostitution IS LEGAL. We can play 'what if' if you like but what is the point? Prostitution isn't illegal. So all bets aren't off.

The SCC ruling was based on keeping ALL Canadians safe, even sex workers.

Sex is a natural, basic human need. A cookie well .... isn't. There is no physical, psychological or physiological need for a cookie. Humans need sex. Big difference.

We're not disagreeing. I'm probably pissing a few people off here, but I think it's important not to lose sight of the big picture. We can't go into a debate considering only our own points. We need to be mindful of how the opposition is framing their discussion.

Prostitution is not illegal. But, let's not kid ourselves. The laws that we had before were not designed to encourage the sex trade. They were designed for quite the contrary.

As for cookies being a natural human need...tell that to my son.

 

[Aardvark154]

just googled it and found this: http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/fem...out-prostitution-trafficking-and-nordic-model

it has answers to all your/our questions and more

Well we do need to be aware of the oppositions arguments. By the way make sure to read "A substantive response to Meaghan Tyler’s “Myths”
By El Feministo submitted December 13, 2013 in the comments section.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Perhaps more sex workers should have been there to interrupt Fry , get in her face & get on camera/TV ..... stating she is full if SHIT!!!

I'll bet you any money she's ultra-liberal and votes NDP every 4 years.
She for gay/lesbian rights.
She's for sexual liberty...etc.

Just dont tell her that consenting adults should be allowed to do what they wanna do. Thats where she draws the line