I almost agree with you. They have taken it too far. Even religious folks are starting to think it's crazy!
Most recent articles on prostitution related laws, opinions, comments
- Thread starter gustave55
- Start date
Sex workers will no longer have to fear being coerced by a pimp, now it will be a religious group (cult) they will have to worry about, sheesh wtf is going on in Canada??
I haven't heard any updates since this. I'm so curious what Wynne will do (if anything).
Oh that I know. I've sent Wynne several emails. But I'm wondering if there is any update or hint as to wynne's official stance on the matter.
Pretty sure earlier in this thread and others, there was a substantial debate about how the law was good for women that participate in sex work and that those who had well defined and cleansed client lists would be minimally impacted. I think the debate was whether the threat of a perjury charge was a large enough factor to stop participation and the reaction was that it was an red herring.
And now this type of stuff starts coming up...
It is just another clear example of the old "first they came for saying"
When the focus was on the purchaser side, that was the time to speak out loud and clear. There was no doubt that the next step would be to address the seller side. And the next will be the business side. Divide and conquer only works if those being impacted are willing to be divided.
(Not directed at MPAsquared as I don't recall where she came down on the question of perjury and protection)
Welcome to Canada's Republicans. They are the only ones that want to do the fucking (of the people).
Not sure if anyone notice this yet that in c-36 they repealed the definition of prostitute as currently defined in the criminal code of canada !!!!!
instead they want to say that " Everyone from anyone"
Here it is as in C-36
12. (1) The definition “prostitute” in subsection 197(1) of the Act is repealed.
(1.1) 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 school ground, playground or daycare centre.
from Criminal Code 197 (1)
“prostitute”
« prostitué »
“prostitute” means a person of either sex who engages in prostitution;
instead they want to say that " Everyone from anyone"
Here it is as in C-36
12. (1) The definition “prostitute” in subsection 197(1) of the Act is repealed.
(1.1) 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 school ground, playground or daycare centre.
from Criminal Code 197 (1)
“prostitute”
« prostitué »
“prostitute” means a person of either sex who engages in prostitution;
definitaion of prostitute was already defined in the Criminal Code of Canada - 197(1) .... in c-36 there are removing that definitation of prostitue and replacing it with ANYONE and EVERYONE..... which means the law is not limited to prostitutes .... now relations with sugarbabes and mistress will also be considered illegal
It's pretty silly to make any amendments while the buyer is criminalized.
I don't like Gunilla Ekberg but I have to agree with her that section 213 is useless. It is moot to criminalize prostitutes near school when the clients are already criminalized.
I think it is the government's way of saying, "you can ply your trade but not in front of children".
Does this not also make sex between married couples, dating couples and one night stands also illegal? The Charter says a law must be applied equally to all citizens with NO discrimination. A husband is an "everybody" and a wife is an "anyone". In fact I believe the reverse is also true. And nowhere in the criminal code is there an exemption from criminal activity just because an "affinity" exists between the two people, despite Mr. MacKay's insistence Bill C-36 doesn't apply in cases where an "affinity" exists. You can't beat the hell out of your spouse, rape her, murder her, etc. because an "affinity" exists between you. I believe ALL SEX will be illegal in Canada. We just need Harper's and MacKay's wives charged with purchasing sexual services after Bill C-36 becomes law. Of course it may be difficult to convince the courts that anyone would want to voluntarily have sex with those two.
The ''affinity'' is for the purpose of interpreting if something consists in ''sexual service for consideration''. It is not meant as an exemption, simply as a precedent that can guide how the law will be interpreted.
The judge can see the difference between these two situation, but the law doesn't. The decision rest more on the crown than the judges I think. It's probably unthinkable that a crown prosecutor would try to prosecute a husband, but if they did and showed conclusive evidence that he really exchanged sex for money with his wife, a judge or jury would have no choice but to find him guilty.
A judge can interpret what ''sexual service'', ''consideration'', ''commercial enterprise'' means. They cannot interpret what ''anyone'' means. That's the one word in the whole bill that is not subject to any interpretation.
