Most recent articles on prostitution related laws, opinions, comments

[wilbur]

There was a similar case in the 90's where the senate rejected an abortion bill introduced by Kim Campbell as a response to the SCC invalidating the abortion laws


Could conservative senators vote against a bill coming from their own party ?

It's happened before, with the Conservatives' controversial Bill on Labour laws. Hugh Segal led the objection against his party's position on labour laws, but he was a Red Tory.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/con...mendment-guts-union-disclosure-bill-1.1367879

'[Liberal Senator] Cowan praised the Senate for what he called doing its job by applying sober second thought to a flawed bill. "If the NDP had its way, there would be no Senate and Bill C-377 would have been the law of the land months ago. It was Liberal senators, supported by a handful of brave Conservative senators, who gutted this bill," he said.'

Conservative senators in favour of Segal amendment

Josée Verner
Gerald Comeau
Nancy Ruth
Nancy Greene
Richard Neufield
Daniel Lang
Jacques Demers
Judith Seidman
David Braley
Don Meredith
Larry Smith
Betty Unger
JoAnne Buth
Norman Doyle
Paul McIntyre



However, according to the article,

"Once the bill arrives back in the House of Commons, Segal's amendment can be approved or rejected, and then the bill would be sent back to the Senate once again. However, the bill won't seesaw back and forth between House and Senate endlessly. The convention established over time is that the Senate eventually bows to the will of the elected chamber. "

But given the questions asked at the Senate hearings on C-36, I don't hold much hope of a repeat.

 

[escapefromstress]

Exactly where are we in the process of this Bill becoming Law?

http://library.queensu.ca/gov/bills_federal

http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliame...ng-bill-e.html

 

[Fallsguy]

Exactly where are we in the process of this Bill becoming Law?

http://library.queensu.ca/gov/bills_federal

http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliame...ng-bill-e.html

Bill still has to go through 3rd reading in the House, then same process in the Senate. The Senate hearings last week were what the House did in July, but the Senate could still hold hearings again after second reading in Senate. After it passes through the Senate the Governor General signs it into law. Sometimes it can take a bill up to a year to go through all these stages, but the gov't wants this bill passed by the Dec. 21st deadline set by the Supreme Court, and that's why they're trying to fast track it.

 

[Fallsguy]

December 21 st deadline isn't an issue for the government, because they can still make new laws even after that deadline.
The real deadline would be the next federal elections because if a new government is elected then this bill will be dead.

Actually the bill would die "on the order paper" if it is not passed by the end of this upcoming parliament, which could be as late as next June. MacKay is afraid that if no law is in place by Dec. 21st that sex workers and their customers will run wild through the streets fornicating everywhere, even in front of the children. Maybe even in front of churches. Who knows what mayhem could break loose.

 

[wilbur]

Seriously ? IN New Zealand every aspect of consensual adult prostitution was decriminalized even street prostitution became legal there and people didn't get crazy fornicating everywhere as you said .

I think there's a line of code missing from his post:

//sarcasm off

Seriously, the Dec 21 deadline would make sense only if the laws were being enforced right now. But they are not because some provinces don't feel like it. In fact, they haven't really done so for a number of years, save when dealing with underage and trafficking. So MacKay is deluded if he thinks that there's going to be public debauchery on a massive scale come December 21st if no new laws are in place.

Such is the downside of being Federal Justice Minister. He can concoct all the laws he wants, but having a conniption fit is not going to make them enforced by the Provinces.

 

[wilbur]

Im surprized that the National Post is consistently against Bill C-36, despite being a right of centre newspaper. At one time, they used to be the propaganda organ of Harper's Conservatives. Are they tiring of Harper?

 

[lenny2]

The difference is now it will be a federal charge. This is very different than a simple ticket which of course the cons are downplaying this part. It will cost a lot of money, time and not to mention the stigma that comes along with it. As for the stigma this is exactly what they want as stated they are looking for a paradigm shift because they know most Canadians so far are not on board.

Under the proposed new law (Bill C-36) i have heard there will be fines. This sounds much like a "simple ticket" where arresting officers often don't even show up for court cases & the accused walks guilt free without paying a dime.

Under the current law John's school has often been offered to those arrested as an option to avoid being charged with a criminal offense, court, the chance of being convicted if found guilty & the resulting criminal record. John's school involved a fine of at least $500 and hours spent in class being "educated" with BS. A guy with a SO might have a problem explaining this to his SO or hiding it from his SO.

Under the current laws LE were also known to send letters to a guy's home address re John's school. Again this could expose his activities to an SO or others.

How will things be any different, or significantly worse, under the new law?

Will John's schools still be an option for LE?

 

[lenny2]

It's not really about arresting people and going to court. The simple fact that the police can arrest you, or at least question you, will drive people to avoid visible area and it will be bad for their safety. Police can still use that law as an excuse to displace prostitutes to dangerous areas. They might use threat of arrest on a prostitute to get her to testify against you for offering to buy sex. We're talking about people who cannot afford a good lawyer and often have all sorts of other issues with the law.

I think LE always have had those options, anyway, but didn't use them. Why change their policy now? A sudden love affair with Harper? Not likely.

Certain types of SP's will make poor credibility witnesses & are unlikely to arrive at a court date, anyway. Under present laws LE could blackmail them as you describe to testify against a client for soliciting, but i am not aware of them ever doing this. What charge would they use to coerce the sex worker? I'm sure LE know it would be a fruitless endeavor, one that would return them extremely little bang for their buck. Has there even been one such case?

Time will tell whether or not the new law drives the business from less "visible areas" to those more dangerous. It could just move it more indoors where it is safer or maintain the status quo.

 

[lenny2]

I don't really know all the details of the advertisement law in the other countries. But I think the reason they are not explicit is not because of advertisement laws themselves. Buying sex services is illegal, so they have to phrase carefully to protect their potential clients. They have to say enough to attract potential customers, but not too much so the guy has some excuse to say he was not looking for sexual services.

In Canada, advertisement was often discreet, but the details could be worked out in private because buying was not illegal. Now even in private clients will be less willing to speak openly about what they want. Of course all these arguments imply that clients actually know the law, which I'm sure many don't.

Even now in Canada public solicitation is illegal, but has even one SP ever been busted for online advertising of specificly detailed "sexual services"? None i've ever heard of. So why worry in this regard re Bill C-36?

 

[Siocnarf]

Even now in Canada public solicitation is illegal, but has even one SP ever been busted for online advertising of specificly detailed "sexual services"?

It's not clear if the internet constitutes a public place. I don't think it has ever been decided in court yet. Also, each website is owned by someone, so when you navigate in a website is it really ''public''? Since anyone has access ''as of right or by invitation, express or implied'' it could be argued to be public, but is it a place?

 

[lenny2]

It's not clear if the internet constitutes a public place. I don't think it has ever been decided in court yet. Also, each website is owned by someone, so when you navigate in a website is it really ''public''? Since anyone has access ''as of right or by invitation, express or implied'' it could be argued to be public, but is it a place?

I see it as common sense that an escort website is "public" & "publicly soliciting". It is in the public domain. Moreso than a private conversation on a street with no people within a block, or a whispering in the ear in a bar with deafening music. Moreover the former, unlike the latter, is open to children and teenagers, which is something the Harper government acts like they care about.

 

[canada-man]

is Terri Jean return to the senate to testify?

 

[Siocnarf]

Moreover the former, unlike the latter, is open to children and teenagers, which is something the Harper government acts like they care about.

I agree a website is probably public, but not certain if it is a ''place'' in the legal sense. For children, if you must be 18 to access or login, then children are not supposed to be on the site and it is ok legally, same as porn.

 

[wilbur]

Even now in Canada public solicitation is illegal, but has even one SP ever been busted for online advertising of specificly detailed "sexual services"? None i've ever heard of. So why worry in this regard re Bill C-36?

AFAIK, it is presently not illegal to advertise sexual services. Under the new law, it will become illegal for third parties (newspapers, on-line classifieds) to carry such ads, except that sex-workers will be able to post their own ads, presumably on their own web servers, or flyers they hand out or post on utility poles.

That being said, Canada can not enforce this prohibition on internet based advertisers if they are abroad. Also, ads will become more nuanced, so it will be impossible for online advertising providers to filter out these ads. So the provision in C-36 is a joke while causing some Canadian newspapers to go bust.

 

[Fallsguy]

Alan Young will appear in front of the Senate Committee:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/SenCommitteeB...&ses=2&comm_id=11&Language=E&meeting_id=15415

Notice of Meeting

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

4:15 PM

Agenda

The subject-matter of Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other ActsPanel 1
Witnesses

Canadian Police Association
- Tom Stamatakis, President
(by videoconference)
- Other witnesses may follow

Panel 2
Witnesses
As Individuals
- Alan Young, counsel for the respondent/appellant on cross-appeal, Terri-Jean Bradford
- Georgialee Lang, Lawyer
(by videoconference)

What's going on? I thought the Senate had already held it's hearings into C36 last week.

 

[Fallsguy]

I think there's a line of code missing from his post:

//sarcasm off

Seriously, the Dec 21 deadline would make sense only if the laws were being enforced right now. But they are not because some provinces don't feel like it. In fact, they haven't really done so for a number of years, save when dealing with underage and trafficking. So MacKay is deluded if he thinks that there's going to be public debauchery on a massive scale come December 21st if no new laws are in place.

Such is the downside of being Federal Justice Minister. He can concoct all the laws he wants, but having a conniption fit is not going to make them enforced by the Provinces.

Yes, I must admit I wrote the post with tongue firmly in cheek. I was trying to think the way a neo-Con toady like MacKay would think. But he actually has warned against the "consequences" of not having a law in effect by Dec. 21st. What a complete tool! A suck-up tool who's never had his tool sucked on.

 

[Siocnarf]

What's going on? I thought the Senate had already held it's hearings into C36 last week.

They only started a pre-study in the Senate. More interviews could follow. One Liberal senator said he wanted to get MacKay to come again and answer more quesitons.

 

[Siocnarf]

..but Lang as well participated to R v Bedford, at the SCC, as lawyer for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.

Yes. Lang was at the House of Commons hearing to defend the bill. One funny moment was when a Liberal mentioned the letter of protest from 200 lawyers and asked her if she was a lone wolf of if there was any other lawyer not employed by the government that thought this bill was constitutional.

 

[Siocnarf]

I think it might be argued to be public. For comparison a gym where only members can enter is still a public place I guess. Depends if the site is considered more like a private club or if just about anyone can get an account. Might also depend if the site is free or paying in which case it could be considered to be a ''business'' and not a ''private'' place.

 

[wilbur]

I think it might be argued to be public. For comparison a gym where only members can enter is still a public place I guess. Depends if the site is considered more like a private club or if just about anyone can get an account. Might also depend if the site is free or paying in which case it could be considered to be a ''business'' and not a ''private'' place.

What's the point in discussing whether a website is a private place our not? It will be illegal to carry advertisements for sex, whether it is on a website, a newspaper, a billboard or using an airplane to pull a banner in the air.

A website is public, but it is not a public place, same as a newspaper is available to the public, but it is a few pages of paper and not a spot on the map.