Most recent articles on prostitution related laws, opinions, comments
- Thread starter gustave55
- Start date
I'm pretty sure they could charge you whether you knew or not. It's your own responsibility to know who you are dealing with. On the other hand maybe it would be possible to plead that you were there for the massage. Provision 210 states: ''...is found, without lawful excuse, in a common bawdy-house...'' I'm just not sure what ''a lawful excuse'' actually is.
Reasonable excuse was supposed to cover someone like a plumber who was fixing something at the time.
Technically that would be illegal under bill C-36. Touching is not a requirement to be a sexual service. Now this is obviously stupid because jerking off to some webcam model would actually now make you a criminal but I guess that is the new law. I believe the interpretation by the courts on whether a service is a sexual service would be if the objective of the service is to obtain sexual gratification whether or not it is achieved. So to get around this, I guess MPs would need to advertise as therapeutic massages.
If we want to take the reasoning all the way, even a marriage counselor or sex therapist could be considered a sexual service. You pay them and they help you have sexual satisfaction. A husband offering a pearl necklace to his wife in exchange for a ''pearl necklace'' would be just as guilty as a john. There is absolutely no exceptions or immunities for ''buyers'' in this law.
With these laws, sky's the limit and it's left entirely to the police and judges to draw the line somewhere. Citizens are supposed to know the law, but they don't tell us what the law means. The possible implications of this law are much worse than just prostitution.
There was this article by Joy Smith about C-36, which is illustrated with the photo of a sex-shop, of all things. I found that bizarre but it's all the same to those crazy people. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/joy-smith-mp/prostitution-bill-canada_b_5459921.html
Yes. the onus was on the accused to prove himself innocent, and not the Crown to prove that you were guilty.By the way under the old laws, could they charge someone who didn't know that the place was a bawdy house ?
If the massage parlours is licensed to provide massages and this is what they advertise, could they arrest anyone who was too naive to go there for massage and didn't know anything about what was going on inside ?
Im sure that people have been caught unawares while illegal activity was going on. But I would have pointed out that the business was legally licensed, and that the police or bylaw enforcement officers failed to protect me from that activity, especially if it was under surveillance prior to being caught in a raid....that is unless you were caught red handed. The raids in Montreal late last year had some clients charged with being found ins, even though the purpose announced to the media was for trafficking offenses. Cops like to stack charges in order to make a bigger splash with the media.
Worldwide, trafficking is often used as an excuse to crack down on prostitution. But my impression in Montreal is that the police is really focusing on trafficking and other problematic places. However, it can be very hard to get evidence for those serious crimes, so they often use the bawdy house law instead. They can use those charges to intimidate the workers and clients to cooperate. Now that they can't charge workers anymore, I'm not sure how they will work with MP.
MacKay, Mulcair disagree over new legislation aimed at protecting sex trade workers
Canada’s justice minister continues to defend new legislation aimed at protecting sex trade workers, while criminalizing those who exploit them.
Peter MacKay says he believes changes ordered by the Supreme Court of Canada will make it easier to catch serial killers like Robert Pickton.
“Absolutely. Now, the bill focuses on the perpetrators who prey on the vulnerable. Prostitution being an inherently dangerous practise and no place in the country knows that more than here in British Columbia and specifically, Vancouver. The Pickton case certainly weighed heavily on the minds of the judiciary.”
But NDP and Opposition Leader Thomas Mulcair says MacKay is naive to think this legislation will improve the safety of sex trade workers.
“He’s talked about his aspiration to do away with prostitution. This just in, prostitution’s been around for a while, so the Supreme Court didn’t ask him about his aspirations, the Supreme Court asked him to meet a Charter requirement to protect people’s lives and he has failed.”
Mulcair says another Supreme Court of Canada challenge is inevitable.
http://www.am730.ca/syn/112/45728/mackay-mulcair-disagree-over-new-legislation
How much more proof do right wingers have to see to realize The Reform Party of Canada is not in your best interest!
Canada’s justice minister continues to defend new legislation aimed at protecting sex trade workers, while criminalizing those who exploit them.
Peter MacKay says he believes changes ordered by the Supreme Court of Canada will make it easier to catch serial killers like Robert Pickton.
“Absolutely. Now, the bill focuses on the perpetrators who prey on the vulnerable. Prostitution being an inherently dangerous practise and no place in the country knows that more than here in British Columbia and specifically, Vancouver. The Pickton case certainly weighed heavily on the minds of the judiciary.”
But NDP and Opposition Leader Thomas Mulcair says MacKay is naive to think this legislation will improve the safety of sex trade workers.
“He’s talked about his aspiration to do away with prostitution. This just in, prostitution’s been around for a while, so the Supreme Court didn’t ask him about his aspirations, the Supreme Court asked him to meet a Charter requirement to protect people’s lives and he has failed.”
Mulcair says another Supreme Court of Canada challenge is inevitable.
http://www.am730.ca/syn/112/45728/mackay-mulcair-disagree-over-new-legislation
How much more proof do right wingers have to see to realize The Reform Party of Canada is not in your best interest!
I'd like to remind readers/posters of the 3 separate powers here, and how this will likely have little impact where transactions are consensual.
First, our elected officials,MPs,are the legislators: they get to write the laws.
Second, our police force, they get to enforce the laws.
Third are the courts, they evaluate enforcement of the laws...usually in very specific situations.
The massage/escort business has thrived...since I can recall...primarily due to a lack of enforcement. Aside from cops getting to see a few busts every time they bust someone in this industry, they are not motivated to do so UNLESS one of the parties feels the transaction was not consensual. Before police got to haul scantily clad women to the cop shop and charge them. With this law - as I understand it and it is reinforced by the posters here - the cops will bring the men downtown, men who will definitely lawyer up to minimize embarassment. Judges and JOPs will likely give most of these men a slap on the wrist again unless the escort/masseuse is willing to testify in court that this was not a consensual transaction, and then there will likely be more severe punishment - as there should be.
So in the end, we'll be at the same place we were before..but a few 'innocent' men will have to suffer the indignity of the court system to get there.
Yeah I'd like laws where BJs, half and halfs, and massage extras are specifically legal, but I'll deal with the very small risks we have now. Besides, spa owners should just install some sort of signalling device in every room to alert everyone to "tidy up" 'cause a cop just walked in.
First, our elected officials,MPs,are the legislators: they get to write the laws.
Second, our police force, they get to enforce the laws.
Third are the courts, they evaluate enforcement of the laws...usually in very specific situations.
The massage/escort business has thrived...since I can recall...primarily due to a lack of enforcement. Aside from cops getting to see a few busts every time they bust someone in this industry, they are not motivated to do so UNLESS one of the parties feels the transaction was not consensual. Before police got to haul scantily clad women to the cop shop and charge them. With this law - as I understand it and it is reinforced by the posters here - the cops will bring the men downtown, men who will definitely lawyer up to minimize embarassment. Judges and JOPs will likely give most of these men a slap on the wrist again unless the escort/masseuse is willing to testify in court that this was not a consensual transaction, and then there will likely be more severe punishment - as there should be.
So in the end, we'll be at the same place we were before..but a few 'innocent' men will have to suffer the indignity of the court system to get there.
Yeah I'd like laws where BJs, half and halfs, and massage extras are specifically legal, but I'll deal with the very small risks we have now. Besides, spa owners should just install some sort of signalling device in every room to alert everyone to "tidy up" 'cause a cop just walked in.
Like you say, the law will likely have not much impact for consensual activities.
For clients it's easy. According to the law we are 100% criminals but pretty much a waste of time to arrest. However, I think it will be difficult and confusing for third parties. Honest agents and owners are not sure what they will be allowed to do. It will probably be enforced the same, but still they could be arrested (even if not abusive), just for running a commercial business.
However drivers, body-guards, helpers, etc, are legal which makes it almost impossible to arrest an abusive pimp that is not running an official business. If it's not a commerce, there is no paper trail and no way to know if a third party is charging an honest fee for their services. Abusive pimps will be able to operate almost without impunity because it is very difficult to prove that someone is being abused unless they go to the police.
Not only does the law make it harder for every sex worker, it makes it even more difficult to rescue victims of abuse.
For clients it's easy. According to the law we are 100% criminals but pretty much a waste of time to arrest. However, I think it will be difficult and confusing for third parties. Honest agents and owners are not sure what they will be allowed to do. It will probably be enforced the same, but still they could be arrested (even if not abusive), just for running a commercial business.
However drivers, body-guards, helpers, etc, are legal which makes it almost impossible to arrest an abusive pimp that is not running an official business. If it's not a commerce, there is no paper trail and no way to know if a third party is charging an honest fee for their services. Abusive pimps will be able to operate almost without impunity because it is very difficult to prove that someone is being abused unless they go to the police.
Not only does the law make it harder for every sex worker, it makes it even more difficult to rescue victims of abuse.
Harper government's legal setbacks suggest strategy of confrontation
In what must feel to the prime minister like a visit to the shooting range, another tenet of the government's tough-on-crime agenda has been blown away.
Holding the rifle this time is respected Ottawa Judge David Paciocco. In tatters is the mandatory victim surcharge, a compulsory funding scheme implemented by the government to fund services to victims and their families.
The victim surcharge ruling is a clear signal the government's recent legal troubles are much more than a clash of personalities between Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and the prime minister, but rather a very real collision of beliefs about how Canada should work.
The surcharge itself isn't new, but the Harper government's approach is. The Conservatives made the charge mandatory for most offences and doubled the amount offenders could be on the hook for. When judges balked, Justice Minister Peter MacKay swore they would eventually "see the wisdom" in applying it.
For one 26-year-old offender appearing before Paciocco, it was $900 the man simply couldn't pay. Rather than try to skirt the surcharge, as other judges have done, Paciocco ruled it unconstitutional.
Government lawyers argued the surcharge was not a punishment, and therefore couldn't be ruled cruel and unusual. They urged the judge to interpret the law the way Parliament intended. Paciocco refused; he said it certainly constituted punishment for the man, and was disproportionate to his crime.
In striking it down, he's set up yet another fight destined for the Supreme Court.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/har...s-suggest-strategy-of-confrontation-1.2729421
In what must feel to the prime minister like a visit to the shooting range, another tenet of the government's tough-on-crime agenda has been blown away.
Holding the rifle this time is respected Ottawa Judge David Paciocco. In tatters is the mandatory victim surcharge, a compulsory funding scheme implemented by the government to fund services to victims and their families.
The victim surcharge ruling is a clear signal the government's recent legal troubles are much more than a clash of personalities between Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and the prime minister, but rather a very real collision of beliefs about how Canada should work.
The surcharge itself isn't new, but the Harper government's approach is. The Conservatives made the charge mandatory for most offences and doubled the amount offenders could be on the hook for. When judges balked, Justice Minister Peter MacKay swore they would eventually "see the wisdom" in applying it.
For one 26-year-old offender appearing before Paciocco, it was $900 the man simply couldn't pay. Rather than try to skirt the surcharge, as other judges have done, Paciocco ruled it unconstitutional.
Government lawyers argued the surcharge was not a punishment, and therefore couldn't be ruled cruel and unusual. They urged the judge to interpret the law the way Parliament intended. Paciocco refused; he said it certainly constituted punishment for the man, and was disproportionate to his crime.
In striking it down, he's set up yet another fight destined for the Supreme Court.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/har...s-suggest-strategy-of-confrontation-1.2729421
I just replied to a Conservative Party e-mail, asking me to tick on the policy points I agree with. Then, they ask at the bottom who I will be voting for. I ticked Liberal.
Well, I guess they thought I was a Conservative Party supporter. I suppose I won't be getting any more e-mails from them anymore.
Peter MacKay's justice roundtables didn't set a place for sex workers
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pet...-didn-t-set-a-place-for-sex-workers-1.2747403
Critics of bill C-36 seem to have been left off the invite list for closed-door consultations
Over the past month, Justice Minister Peter MacKay has been not-so-quietly crisscrossing the country, holding closed-door confabs with what his department describes as "criminal justice system stakeholders."
Although those meetings have taken place in camera, which puts the details of the discussion firmly off the record, it's clear from the accompanying press releases that one of the key items on the agenda has been C-36, MacKay's legislative bid to rewrite Canada's prostitution laws in the wake of last year's Supreme Court decision.
In an email to CBC News, MacKay spokeswoman Clarissa Lamb declined to release any additional information on who has been bending MacKay's ear over the course of his cross-Canada consultations on C-36 and other "justice-related issues."
Despite repeated requests, she refused to provide a list of attendees, but would say only that the minister "has met with a variety of individuals across many different sectors on justice issues of concern to Canadians across the country."
"One central theme was clear throughout," she added. "That Canadians want safe communities in which to live and raise their families."
That's not surprising, really, as from what we can glean about the invite list from other sources, it appears to have included some of the most vocal advocates of the proposed prostitution bill, otherwise known as the protection of communities and exploited persons act.
Several of those participants also spoke passionately in support of the bill when it went before the House justice committee earlier this summer.
One subset of stakeholders that doesn't seem to have been given a seat at the minister's roundtable, however, are the current and former sex workers who fear those new laws will have precisely the opposite effect on their community.
MacKay 'missing out,' says activist
Kerry Porth, a former sex worker turned activist for sex workers' rights and who appeared before the House Justice committee earlier this summer, is one of many critics of the bill who wasn't on the guest list for MacKay's invite-only sessions.
"He's missing out on what this government has been missing out on from the beginning of this — from the beginning of Bedford v. Canada," she told CBC News, referring to the case that led to the Supreme Court striking down the current laws and giving Ottawa one year to draft replacement legislation.
"That case presents 25,000 pages of expert testimony, which the minister says he's read, but I sincerely doubt it," said Porth.
"I don't think you could read the social science evidence, and hear what sex workers are saying about how to keep themselves safe, and the fact that they want decriminalization, and think that C-36 responds in any way to any of that."
The Toronto lawyer who spearheaded the Bedford challenge told CBC News that excluding certain interests from the discussion "sounds pretty typical of this government."
"Like-minded people stick together, so the abolitionists speak to the abolitionists, and the legalization people speak to themselves, and the two camps don't meet because they don't like to hear what each other has to say," noted Alan Young.
"This government is doing the same thing right now — speaking only to people who have a consistent perspective with their own. It's really just a process of confirmation of what you've chosen to do, and avoiding the contrary voices, so you don't question what you're doing. It's pretty obvious there's a small group of people who have been able to influence the government, and they're taking that to the bank."
Few legal implications to failure to consult
Still, he said, there are few legal implications to the government's approach.
"When there's an undertaking to consult, that may trigger some legal requirements, and some ramifications in terms of remedy, but for the most part, government can pretty much do what it wants," Young told CBC News.
Even so, he said failure to consult could still come up as an issue if the legislation sparks another legal challenge.
"One of the issues that will happen under the arbitrariness analysis of the charter is if they had a reasonable basis for believing their legislation is effective — and it's possible the failure to consult with certain groups could undercut that," he said.
But while that may "reflect badly on the government of the day," Young doesn't see it becoming "the hallmark of constitutionality deficiency" if MacKay's revamped laws end up back in court.
And, in theory, opponents of the bill will get one more chance to share their concerns before C-36 becomes the law of the land.
Senate to study bill next month
Next month, the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee is slated to begin a pre-study of C-36, which will include at least three days of testimony, and although the witness list has not yet been released, it's unlikely those hearings will be as extensive and wide-ranging as the House committee hearings were.
Traditionally, senators focus on fixing technical errors, translation mistakes and other minor problems not spotted by their Commons colleagues. It's rare that they make major changes to the substance of a bill.
Porth, who testified before the Commons committee alongside Pivot Legal Society lawyer Katrina Pacey, says she has no plans to join Pacey when she makes a return trip to Ottawa this fall.
"We did a ton of mobilization around the [House] justice committee hearings, which were, to put it mildly, were a gong show … an incredibly unseemly experience for every current or former sex worker who appeared at that committee to speak against the bill," Porth recalls.
"After having appeared at the justice committee, and being given 10 minutes — actually, five minutes and 30 seconds — to speak, and then ignored for an hour and a half, I have no real interest in going through that experience again."
"Everybody who put their name forward to testify at the justice committee has put their name forward to testify at the Senate committee, and those who do get invited to participate … will do so, so we can say we have participated in the process," Porth notes.
"But we're not expecting any changes … to the bill."
Bill's opponents have to be patient, Bedford lawyer says
That doesn't mean opponents of the bill are abandoning the fight.
Despite the frustration over the legislative process, Porth says it has, at least, provided an opportunity to "educate Canadians on what sex workers want."
"Constitutional law issues can be a little bit dusty and dry and difficult to understand," she notes.
"But when Canadians see a decision made by their Supreme Court… and then they see their government turn around and reverse that decision, that simple fact is enough to get people interested, and concerned with the issue."
That, she says, leaves her hopeful that in future, "when we try for legal reform again, we'll have more support from the people of Canada."
Meanwhile, Young warns that opponents of the new law may have to be patient in waiting for the right moment to launch a legal challenge.
"It's a lot trickier than people think," he notes.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pet...-didn-t-set-a-place-for-sex-workers-1.2747403
"There are a lot of people jumping up and down, and saying that it's unconstitutional, and will lead to worse results, but the government was fairly tricky in terms of how they designed it, by at least nominally addressing the Supreme Court concerns, and then grafting on an advocacy concern from a certain abolitionist group."
The reality, says Young, "is that what they were left with is basically incoherent — but people who think you're just going to run back to the Supreme Court and get this invalidated don't understand the process."
For his part, he thinks it's "disastrous" what the government has done.
"It makes me regret bringing the case in the first place," he told CBC News.
"I do think it's vulnerable, but I hope people exercise prudence and caution, and wait for the right time and the right argument to unravel this mess. "
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pet...-didn-t-set-a-place-for-sex-workers-1.2747403
Critics of bill C-36 seem to have been left off the invite list for closed-door consultations
Over the past month, Justice Minister Peter MacKay has been not-so-quietly crisscrossing the country, holding closed-door confabs with what his department describes as "criminal justice system stakeholders."
Although those meetings have taken place in camera, which puts the details of the discussion firmly off the record, it's clear from the accompanying press releases that one of the key items on the agenda has been C-36, MacKay's legislative bid to rewrite Canada's prostitution laws in the wake of last year's Supreme Court decision.
In an email to CBC News, MacKay spokeswoman Clarissa Lamb declined to release any additional information on who has been bending MacKay's ear over the course of his cross-Canada consultations on C-36 and other "justice-related issues."
Despite repeated requests, she refused to provide a list of attendees, but would say only that the minister "has met with a variety of individuals across many different sectors on justice issues of concern to Canadians across the country."
"One central theme was clear throughout," she added. "That Canadians want safe communities in which to live and raise their families."
That's not surprising, really, as from what we can glean about the invite list from other sources, it appears to have included some of the most vocal advocates of the proposed prostitution bill, otherwise known as the protection of communities and exploited persons act.
Several of those participants also spoke passionately in support of the bill when it went before the House justice committee earlier this summer.
One subset of stakeholders that doesn't seem to have been given a seat at the minister's roundtable, however, are the current and former sex workers who fear those new laws will have precisely the opposite effect on their community.
MacKay 'missing out,' says activist
Kerry Porth, a former sex worker turned activist for sex workers' rights and who appeared before the House Justice committee earlier this summer, is one of many critics of the bill who wasn't on the guest list for MacKay's invite-only sessions.
"He's missing out on what this government has been missing out on from the beginning of this — from the beginning of Bedford v. Canada," she told CBC News, referring to the case that led to the Supreme Court striking down the current laws and giving Ottawa one year to draft replacement legislation.
"That case presents 25,000 pages of expert testimony, which the minister says he's read, but I sincerely doubt it," said Porth.
"I don't think you could read the social science evidence, and hear what sex workers are saying about how to keep themselves safe, and the fact that they want decriminalization, and think that C-36 responds in any way to any of that."
The Toronto lawyer who spearheaded the Bedford challenge told CBC News that excluding certain interests from the discussion "sounds pretty typical of this government."
"Like-minded people stick together, so the abolitionists speak to the abolitionists, and the legalization people speak to themselves, and the two camps don't meet because they don't like to hear what each other has to say," noted Alan Young.
"This government is doing the same thing right now — speaking only to people who have a consistent perspective with their own. It's really just a process of confirmation of what you've chosen to do, and avoiding the contrary voices, so you don't question what you're doing. It's pretty obvious there's a small group of people who have been able to influence the government, and they're taking that to the bank."
Few legal implications to failure to consult
Still, he said, there are few legal implications to the government's approach.
"When there's an undertaking to consult, that may trigger some legal requirements, and some ramifications in terms of remedy, but for the most part, government can pretty much do what it wants," Young told CBC News.
Even so, he said failure to consult could still come up as an issue if the legislation sparks another legal challenge.
"One of the issues that will happen under the arbitrariness analysis of the charter is if they had a reasonable basis for believing their legislation is effective — and it's possible the failure to consult with certain groups could undercut that," he said.
But while that may "reflect badly on the government of the day," Young doesn't see it becoming "the hallmark of constitutionality deficiency" if MacKay's revamped laws end up back in court.
And, in theory, opponents of the bill will get one more chance to share their concerns before C-36 becomes the law of the land.
Senate to study bill next month
Next month, the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee is slated to begin a pre-study of C-36, which will include at least three days of testimony, and although the witness list has not yet been released, it's unlikely those hearings will be as extensive and wide-ranging as the House committee hearings were.
Traditionally, senators focus on fixing technical errors, translation mistakes and other minor problems not spotted by their Commons colleagues. It's rare that they make major changes to the substance of a bill.
Porth, who testified before the Commons committee alongside Pivot Legal Society lawyer Katrina Pacey, says she has no plans to join Pacey when she makes a return trip to Ottawa this fall.
"We did a ton of mobilization around the [House] justice committee hearings, which were, to put it mildly, were a gong show … an incredibly unseemly experience for every current or former sex worker who appeared at that committee to speak against the bill," Porth recalls.
"After having appeared at the justice committee, and being given 10 minutes — actually, five minutes and 30 seconds — to speak, and then ignored for an hour and a half, I have no real interest in going through that experience again."
"Everybody who put their name forward to testify at the justice committee has put their name forward to testify at the Senate committee, and those who do get invited to participate … will do so, so we can say we have participated in the process," Porth notes.
"But we're not expecting any changes … to the bill."
Bill's opponents have to be patient, Bedford lawyer says
That doesn't mean opponents of the bill are abandoning the fight.
Despite the frustration over the legislative process, Porth says it has, at least, provided an opportunity to "educate Canadians on what sex workers want."
"Constitutional law issues can be a little bit dusty and dry and difficult to understand," she notes.
"But when Canadians see a decision made by their Supreme Court… and then they see their government turn around and reverse that decision, that simple fact is enough to get people interested, and concerned with the issue."
That, she says, leaves her hopeful that in future, "when we try for legal reform again, we'll have more support from the people of Canada."
Meanwhile, Young warns that opponents of the new law may have to be patient in waiting for the right moment to launch a legal challenge.
"It's a lot trickier than people think," he notes.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pet...-didn-t-set-a-place-for-sex-workers-1.2747403
"There are a lot of people jumping up and down, and saying that it's unconstitutional, and will lead to worse results, but the government was fairly tricky in terms of how they designed it, by at least nominally addressing the Supreme Court concerns, and then grafting on an advocacy concern from a certain abolitionist group."
The reality, says Young, "is that what they were left with is basically incoherent — but people who think you're just going to run back to the Supreme Court and get this invalidated don't understand the process."
For his part, he thinks it's "disastrous" what the government has done.
"It makes me regret bringing the case in the first place," he told CBC News.
"I do think it's vulnerable, but I hope people exercise prudence and caution, and wait for the right time and the right argument to unravel this mess. "
The bylaws don't allow for warning systems. Its a fine/ticket. And that wouldn't help regarding c-36 issues.
Peter MacKay's justice roundtables didn't set a place for sex workers
Critics of bill C-36 seem to have been left off the invite list for closed-door consultations
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pet...-didn-t-set-a-place-for-sex-workers-1.2747403
Over the past month, Justice Minister Peter MacKay has been not-so-quietly crisscrossing the country, holding closed-door confabs with what his department describes as "criminal justice system stakeholders."
Although those meetings have taken place in camera, which puts the details of the discussion firmly off the record, it's clear from the accompanying press releases that one of the key items on the agenda has been C-36, MacKay's legislative bid to rewrite Canada's prostitution laws in the wake of last year's Supreme Court decision.
n an email to CBC News, MacKay spokeswoman Clarissa Lamb declined to release any additional information on who has been bending MacKay's ear over the course of his cross-Canada consultations on C-36 and other "justice-related issues."
Despite repeated requests, she refused to provide a list of attendees, but would say only that the minister "has met with a variety of individuals across many different sectors on justice issues of concern to Canadians across the country."
"One central theme was clear throughout," she added. "That Canadians want safe communities in which to live and raise their families."
That's not surprising, really, as from what we can glean about the invite list from other sources, it appears to have included some of the most vocal advocates of the proposed prostitution bill, otherwise known as the protection of communities and exploited persons act.
Several of those participants also spoke passionately in support of the bill when it went before the House justice committee earlier this summer.
One subset of stakeholders that doesn't seem to have been given a seat at the minister's roundtable, however, are the current and former sex workers who fear those new laws will have precisely the opposite effect on their community.
Critics of bill C-36 seem to have been left off the invite list for closed-door consultations
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pet...-didn-t-set-a-place-for-sex-workers-1.2747403
Over the past month, Justice Minister Peter MacKay has been not-so-quietly crisscrossing the country, holding closed-door confabs with what his department describes as "criminal justice system stakeholders."
Although those meetings have taken place in camera, which puts the details of the discussion firmly off the record, it's clear from the accompanying press releases that one of the key items on the agenda has been C-36, MacKay's legislative bid to rewrite Canada's prostitution laws in the wake of last year's Supreme Court decision.
n an email to CBC News, MacKay spokeswoman Clarissa Lamb declined to release any additional information on who has been bending MacKay's ear over the course of his cross-Canada consultations on C-36 and other "justice-related issues."
Despite repeated requests, she refused to provide a list of attendees, but would say only that the minister "has met with a variety of individuals across many different sectors on justice issues of concern to Canadians across the country."
"One central theme was clear throughout," she added. "That Canadians want safe communities in which to live and raise their families."
That's not surprising, really, as from what we can glean about the invite list from other sources, it appears to have included some of the most vocal advocates of the proposed prostitution bill, otherwise known as the protection of communities and exploited persons act.
Several of those participants also spoke passionately in support of the bill when it went before the House justice committee earlier this summer.
One subset of stakeholders that doesn't seem to have been given a seat at the minister's roundtable, however, are the current and former sex workers who fear those new laws will have precisely the opposite effect on their community.
Wrong.
First of all, it is well known that SP's often provide purely non-sexual services to their clients, such as, e.g. social time, talking, chatting, dinner & a movie together, etc
Secondly, if you were there buying the escorts' companionship per time period, e.g. 300/hr, you were not there to "buy a sexual service".
BTW, what is "a sexual service"? Are they going to charge you, have a case brought to court for the media to report with the SP testifying "we just cuddled" or "it was only kissing"? I've had sessions like that. I think such a case would make the Conservative's prostitution law look like a joke to the world. Perhaps their opposers should try to purposely have such a case brought into the spotlights, just to make it look foolish and test the definition of "sexual services" so that people know its meaning & where to draw the line.
If the cops ask you what you were doing at the sex worker's place, you should have already prearranged a "story" with the SP that the two of you will agree on, if this proceeds to the next level.
Not to mention they have yet to prove that you paid her or did any business with her. If someone leaves the place of a reputed drug dealer they could not charge him without proof of wrongdoing, even if they assumed he was there for a deal. And unlike drugs, sex is not illegal, so even if they somehow know you had sex how do they prove it was for money? People say the new law is worse than the previous, but without the bawdy house law it seems to me that it would be much more difficult to arrest a client, or at least make the charges stick.
What would be awesome to make this law look foolish would be to have a wife get her own husband arrested for offering her gifts in exchange for sex. A wife who's getting a divorce could do anything the law allows against her husband. The law doesn't say anything about defining prostitution or sex work. Anyone, anywhere who offers consideration in exchange for sex is a criminal.
