Thanks! From what I've read so far, the wording of the law is so convoluted that it leaves much to interpretation by the courts. That said, aside from true exploitation cases, I find it hard to believe that the justice system would willingly prosecute consenting adults under a flawed (and likely unconstitutional) law - it would waste a monumental amount of time, money and resources when they could be going after real criminals. IMO it's tantamount to harassment by the state. I remember years ago, being on here and reading a comment about a citizen who had complained to police about a morality based issue, and wanted LE to 'arrest the perpetrator' - the specifics elude me, but I do recall that when police responded to the call, they declined to do anything, stating 'Ma'am, we enforce the law, not morality.' Funny, but under C-36 wouldn't they be doing just that? The irony...:frusty:
Most recent articles on prostitution related laws, opinions, comments
- Thread starter gustave55
- Start date
Laws that interfere with individual rights have been struck down. Examples are, same-sex marriage, medical marijuana, assisted suicide, and abortion. The interference with individual rights is the basis of a lawsuit in California that seeks to overturn the laws against prostitution.Well. if prostitution is illegal, then how would anyone expect to mount a constitutional challenge? The courts would simply say 'well, it's an illegal activity.' As such, a plaintiff would have no grounds. Just replace 'prostitution' with 'drug dealing' and you get the idea. Also, why then have I heard nothing but "sex is legal to sell, but illegal to buy" in all the media coverage on this issue since day one? It makes no sense...
What really happened, is that the police now have a mugshot on file with a name and a label as a known prostitute. They may not arrest her, but anybody associated with her is subject to be accused of buying sex, or a boyfriend is subject to being accused of being her pimp. If this is the case, it can destroy her business, as police now can put her under surveillance, and anybody leaving her company can be asked to justify being in the presence of a known prostitute.
Makes me sick that the narrative automatically describes all sex workers as victims who need help to exit the lifestyle.
Backpage wins restraining order against Cook County sheriff
Backpage.com Wins Restraining Order Against Cook County Sheriff
by Daniel Fisher, forbes.com
July 24
A federal judge in Chicago granted Backpage.com a temporary restraining order halting Cook County Sheriff Thomas Dart’s campaign to drive the adult advertising site out of business by convincing credit-card companies not to do business with it.
Sheriff Dart did did a very public victory lap earlier this month after Visa Visa and MasterCard MasterCard agreed to stop processing classified-ad transactions involving Backpage, which has been targeted by some law-enforcement types, as well as critics like New York Times Columnist William Kristol, as an open marketplace for illegal sex trafficking. But U.S. District Judge John Tharp, in a 6-page order, said Dart’s attack on Backpage might actually be an unconstitutional form of censorship.
Backpage.com Wins Restraining Order Against Cook County Sheriff
by Daniel Fisher, forbes.com
July 24
A federal judge in Chicago granted Backpage.com a temporary restraining order halting Cook County Sheriff Thomas Dart’s campaign to drive the adult advertising site out of business by convincing credit-card companies not to do business with it.
Sheriff Dart did did a very public victory lap earlier this month after Visa Visa and MasterCard MasterCard agreed to stop processing classified-ad transactions involving Backpage, which has been targeted by some law-enforcement types, as well as critics like New York Times Columnist William Kristol, as an open marketplace for illegal sex trafficking. But U.S. District Judge John Tharp, in a 6-page order, said Dart’s attack on Backpage might actually be an unconstitutional form of censorship.
Here's the link to sign the petition to call on the Amnesty International Council to stand firm and support decriminalisation of sex work and protect the human rights of sex workers:
https://www.change.org/p/amnesty-in...k-and-protect-the-human-rights-of-sex-workers
https://www.change.org/p/amnesty-in...k-and-protect-the-human-rights-of-sex-workers
And the more the sex trade gets driven underground, thanks to the new legislation, the more of this abuse of sex workers wil occur.
i notice there is an increase of news stories like this since c-36 became law. in Edmonton bad dates are increasing and going unreported
List of the fucksticks who voted for C-36.
Make sure you remember their names when you're voting at the ballot box:
https://openparliament.ca/votes/41-2/249/
Make sure you remember their names when you're voting at the ballot box:
https://openparliament.ca/votes/41-2/249/
Today could mark the end of Bill C36. When you're voting keep this in mind, every party but one is in favour of repealing Bill C36. That's not saying that they actually will, but the Sex trade is far more organized than it's ever been, thanks to Stephen Harper, and any new gov't will face relentless lobbying and pressure into keeping their word on this issue.
Don't count on it. It's a divisive issue, and the Liberals, assuming they take over the government, are going to delay any action as long as they can. The only chance is if they submit the law to the SCC, and then wash their hands of the whole thing, whatever the outcome.
It is now, as global news declares a lib government.
Conservative underestimates the voting power of pervert "John"!
Conservative underestimates the voting power of pervert "John"!
Considerable revulsion against Harper. He did it to himself and his party by taking it too far to the right. The culmination of his ideological bent was the plan to build the memorial to victims of communism right in front of the Supreme Court of Canada building in Ottawa.
Anyway, polls show that 10% of the male population admitted to buying sex at last once. Another 10% will lie to such a question when asked by someone on the phone. That represents millions of persons with a potential personal axe to grind against Harper. I already started to hate Harper on another matter, but that was the nail in the coffin.
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/prostitution-laws-could-see-more-changes-under-liberals/
Canada’s recently updated prostitution laws might see more changes under the Liberals, Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould says.
The Supreme Court struck down the old law almost two years ago on the grounds it put sex workers at increased risk. The Conservatives proposed C-36 in response, although many of the experts who addressed the House and Senate committees dealing with the bill said it could make the work even less safe. The Liberals said last year they shared those concerns.
Wilson-Raybould said in an interview with Maclean’s that she was briefed on the matter last Thursday.
“It’s definitely something that we will be looking at, and look forward to having more discussions and advising [about] our next steps,” she said, recognizing that “the safety of the workers is fundamentally important.”
Wilson-Raybould says the Liberals will “proceed in a way that is open and engages with people,” including substantive discussions about the law.
In December 2013, the court struck down the laws against street soliciting, living on the avails of prostitution and keeping a brothel. It gave the then-Conservative government a year to write a new law. In response, the government criminalized the purchase of sex, starting last December. But sex workers and researchers said the new legislation would make the work more dangerous by driving it further underground and limiting the amount of time a sex worker has to try to determine whether the client could turn out to be a bad date. Then-justice minister Peter MacKay insisted the new law would protect sex workers, and said the bill’s ultimate goal was to end prostitution.
One supposes that, had he succeeded, Wilson-Raybould wouldn’t need to worry about it.
https://openparliament.ca/votes/41-2/249/
Justin Trudeau voted no on c-36
Canada’s recently updated prostitution laws might see more changes under the Liberals, Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould says.
The Supreme Court struck down the old law almost two years ago on the grounds it put sex workers at increased risk. The Conservatives proposed C-36 in response, although many of the experts who addressed the House and Senate committees dealing with the bill said it could make the work even less safe. The Liberals said last year they shared those concerns.
Wilson-Raybould said in an interview with Maclean’s that she was briefed on the matter last Thursday.
“It’s definitely something that we will be looking at, and look forward to having more discussions and advising [about] our next steps,” she said, recognizing that “the safety of the workers is fundamentally important.”
Wilson-Raybould says the Liberals will “proceed in a way that is open and engages with people,” including substantive discussions about the law.
In December 2013, the court struck down the laws against street soliciting, living on the avails of prostitution and keeping a brothel. It gave the then-Conservative government a year to write a new law. In response, the government criminalized the purchase of sex, starting last December. But sex workers and researchers said the new legislation would make the work more dangerous by driving it further underground and limiting the amount of time a sex worker has to try to determine whether the client could turn out to be a bad date. Then-justice minister Peter MacKay insisted the new law would protect sex workers, and said the bill’s ultimate goal was to end prostitution.
One supposes that, had he succeeded, Wilson-Raybould wouldn’t need to worry about it.
https://openparliament.ca/votes/41-2/249/
Justin Trudeau voted no on c-36
