http://www.saultstar.com/2014/07/12/stop-the-talk-legalize-prostitution
Stop the talk, legalize prostitution
There have been calls for the Conservative government to refer its prostitution bill pre-emptively to the Supreme Court of Canada but Justice Minister Peter McKay, who has been quoted as saying the bill is compliant with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms even though no outside legal opinions were sought, continues to refuse to do so.
I think he is making a mistake.
Surely it would be better to get the Supreme Court to offer an opinion on the bill now so that it can be ruled constitutionally OK with some certainty or receive suggested amendments that would make it so, rather than simply pushing the bill through Parliament and having it eventually go to the Supreme Court through a Charter challenge that is sure to come.
Last December the Supreme Court threw out existing prostitution laws that, among other things, had made it illegal to communicate to sell or buy sex even though prostitution in and of itself was not illegal. The court said the laws violated the Charter and it gave the government a year to bring in new legislation.
In response, the government has come up with new legislation, Bill C-36, that makes it legal to sell sex but not to buy it.
As Parliamentary hearings resumed on the bill this week, Donald Piragoff, the senior assistant deputy minister in the Department of Justice's policy section, defended the bill, telling MPs, "The bill specifically deals with the safety deficiencies the Supreme Court found in the existing law."
But Leonardo S. Russomanno, speaking on behalf of Canada's Criminal Lawyers' Association, told the committee the bill is vulnerable to a challenge.
"It really comes down to whether C-36 would survive a section one Charter challenge. And, in my view, it would fail to do so on the basis it's not proportionate at all," Mr. Russomanno told MPs, adding the bill will drive sex workers underground and "utterly fails" to protect them.
I agree with the lawyers.
I don't see how this bill does anything more to protect those in the sex trade any more than what was in place.
And I can't see how it can be constitutional for it to be a crime to buy something that it is legal to sell.
As well, although this bill purportedly lets prostitutes off the hook, it really doesn't go all the way since solicitation by either party is still a crime.
The proposed amendment to Sec. 213 (1.1) of the Criminal Code of Canada says:
"Everyone is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who communicates with any person--for the purpose of offering or providing sexual services for consideration --in a public place, or in any place open to public view, that is or is next to a place where persons under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present."
That to me says those on the offering side, the prostitutes, might be Ok to actually sell sex, all right, but they can still go down for talking about it with a John.
The Canadian Press quoted Bob Dechert, the parliamentary secretary to MacKay, as saying the new law allows prostitutes to rent apartments, screen clients, hire a receptionist or security guard, and advertise what they are offering.
But in regard to advertising the bill actually amends Sec. 286.4 of the Criminal Code to say, "Everyone who knowingly advertises an offer to provide sexual services for consideration is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months."
How are these kind of things supposed to help prostitutes? I can't see that the government has come up with anything better than what went before.
Actually, sex workers are on record as saying that because buying sex remains a criminal offence, the new law will drive them back into dark alleys and industrial zones, leaving them at risk.
They should also mention it will drive them back into neighbourhoods, such as was the case in the Sault where prostitutes sold their wares at the corner of Gore and Wellington streets until a police crackdown.
If sex workers can't set up shop indoors and advertise where they are and what they are selling, doesn't it just stand to reason that they will have to return to the streets or take their chances soliciting in bars?
They can't be expected to sit waiting in a room when nobody knows they are there and what they are selling.
Yet with soliciting still on the books, they are at risk of violating the law if they do anything else.
I think McKay's bill has taken us into the world of the bizarre.
On the other hand, I don't think there is a possibility that we will ever see a bill that makes sense because the intent in all will be to curb prostitution.
And folks, that just ain't (sic) going to happen.
Prime Minister Harper said this week that legalizing prostitution is "unacceptable to Canadians" but he didn't present any figures to back up that claim.
In fact, the claim flies in the face of an Angus Reid online survey of 1,007 Canadians, conducted June 6-7, that found 45 per cent of respondents believe buying sex should be legal, and an equal number opposed, while 11 per cent were not sure. A larger proportion, 51 per cent, believe selling sex should be legal.
Over time, these figures will change, more opting for legalization.
That's where I stand. Legalize it, regulate it and tax it so we can finally quit talking about it.
WELL, IT IS TIME for my yearly update on the cedar trees that have been planted along the solar farm on Black Road to form a buffer or, in more real terms, to hide the ugly panels from the motoring public passing by.
It ain't working, guys and gals.
It seems a majority of the cedars survived the harsh winter but the problem is the same as I reported last year, the grass in many areas is continuing to outgrow them.
I said then that they way things are going, by my calculation a tree buffer probably won't be in place until somewhere around 2020
That estimate probably holds. It certainly hasn't advanced.
But at least the majority of these trees, the planting in 2012 the third since the original effort in 2010 and being done in soil that had been raised a foot to give the trees a head start, are surviving, even if they don't seem to have any idea of what reach for the sky means.
.
Memo: Doug Millroy, editor emeritus of The Sault Star, can be reached at
millroy@shaw.ca.
NOTE the ignorant comment of Rissa at the end of the article.
