Most recent articles on prostitution related laws, opinions, comments

AK-47

Armed to the tits
Mar 6, 2009
6,697
1
0
In the 6
Harper should officially rename Canada into Saudi Canadia tomorrow, much more fitting
 

op12

Active member
Oct 19, 2004
331
111
43
PeterMacKayBodyCount.ca someone needs to create this website to tally the deaths he could prevented.
 

MPAsquared

www.musemassagespa.com
Wow!!!! This is more encouraging news!

"Canada’s new prostitution law comes into force Saturday, the 25th anniversary of the shooting deaths of 14 women at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal.

Defenders of the legislation that makes the purchase of sexual services a criminal offence, no doubt think it’s appropriate the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act comes into being the same day as the National Day of Remembrance and Action of Violence Against Women.

Rather more people, I suspect, will agree with one of the women behind the successful court action against the old law, who called it “sick and twisted.”

(For the record, the government claims it had no control over the date the bill received Royal Assent.)

Either way, Dec. 6 fires the starting gun for those who believe the law is unconstitutional because it will continue to endanger sex workers.


The legal challenge process could provide a new front in the cold war being played out between the Harper government and Kathleen Wynne’s Ontario Liberals.

Senior Liberal sources say there is “disquiet” inside the provincial government over concerns the new law does not protect the safety of sex workers. This was the key requirement demanded by the Supreme Court of Canada when it declared the existing law fell foul of Section 7 of the Charter of Rights, which guarantees everyone the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, the source said an intervention by Ontario is possible.

If the province does enter the court process, it has the option of intervening in a process initiated by one of the groups already planning litigation, such as the Sex Workers Rights Movement.

However, it would be a much more potent statement if the province made its own reference, expressing its concerns about the law’s constitutionality.

“It would speak volumes about the widespread concerns that many Canadians have, if a provincial government said it had its own concerns about the position it’s been put in, as far as enforcement,” said Katrina Pacey, legal director for Vancouver’s Pivot Legal Society.

A legal challenge could provide a new front in the cold war being played out between the Harper government and Kathleen Wynne’s Ontario Liberals

Opponents of the new law are keen for a province to enter the fray for another reason — it could take four to five years for the case to wind its way through the courts and reach the Supreme Court again. However, if a province intervenes, it could expedite matters by taking the case straight to appellate court, skipping one lengthy step in the court process.

Not to suggest politicians are ever motivated by spite, malice or personal vendettas, but the temptation for the Wynne government to stick it to the federal Conservatives must be very great indeed.

When Prime Minister Stephen Harper visited Markham on Thursday, he lectured Ms. Wynne on how to run her government. “I would encourage the government of Ontario to focus on [its fiscal challenges], not on confrontation. What we’ve done at the federal level, we’re balancing our budget, we’re cutting taxes and we’re delivering more services,” he said.

Whether the Ontario government intervenes or not, there is a broad swath of legal opinion that believes the new federal law is unconstitutional and will eventually be struck down by the Supreme Court.

At Senate hearings in the fall, Justice Minister Peter MacKay said he has been advised the new law is “likely” to survive a court challenge.

This advice came, presumably, from the same lawyers who told the government it would win the last 10 major cases at the Supreme Court. In the end, it won just one — losing over Senate reform, the old prostitution legislation and the appointment to the Supreme Court of Justice Marc Nadon, to name just three.

The new prostitution law tries to quash the demand for paid sex, criminalizing what Mr. MacKay called “the perpetrators, the perverts and the pimps” by making it a crime to buy, but not to sell, sex.

The critics point out by criminalizing johns, the well-being of sex workers is not enhanced — the key ingredient of any constitutional law — because prostitutes will take steps to avoid police detection. This will mean they are unable to screen clients and remain at risk of violence, abuse and HIV.

Since the legislation also bans the advertising of sexual services in newspapers and websites, the fear is more women will end up on the streets.

Not to show contempt for the law — in fact, I’m trying to conceal it — but how could anyone believe it passes constitutional muster?

The only hope seems to be the Hail Mary defence that falls back on Section One of the Charter of Rights. This allows a right to be infringed without the charter being violated because it places “reasonable limits” on rights and freedoms.

Given the recent track record of the Justice department’s lawyers, that looks a long shot.

The most obvious conclusion is Canada’s government has passed a law it knows to be unconstitutional, banking on it being long gone from office by the time the hypothesis is proven.

That is more than a little twisted.

National Post

• Email: jivison@nationalpost.com | Twitter: IvisonJ "
 

corrie fan

Well-known member
Nov 13, 2014
966
391
63
Hailey♥4U;5112702 said:
of course c-36 is spiteful....
When C-36 is challenged Sen. Plett should be called to testify. His testimony alone would likely result in the law being struck down.
 

MPAsquared

www.musemassagespa.com
@CP24: Now Magazine says it will defy ban on advertising sexual services
http://www.cp24.com/news/now-magazi...ising-sexual-services-1.2135849#ixzz3L7ZoCcEj
Yes! Here is an article about it:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada...efy-ad-ban-in-new-prostitution-bill-1.2135855

OTTAWA -- A ban on advertising sexual services takes effect Saturday as part of the federal government's new prostitution laws -- but at least one of Canada's leading independent newspapers says it plans to defy it.
The prohibition is one of several sweeping new changes to the way prostitution is now regulated in Canada in the wake of a Supreme Court decision last year that found the old laws violated the rights of prostitutes.
But Toronto's Now Magazine, which has long published ads promoting sexual services in the back pages of its weekly tabloid, has no plans to stop, said Alice Klein, the alternative newspaper's editor and chief executive officer
"Now Magazine started taking sex ads because we take ads, that's how we support ourselves and we have always refused to discriminate against sex work and sex workers," she said in an interview.
"We are committed to free expression and we don't believe it's our right to say which advertisers are allowed to advertise and which advertisers aren't."
The Supreme Court struck down Canada's old prostitution laws last year, ruling they deprived sex workers of the right to a safe and secure environment.
In response, the government introduced Bill C-36, which upended prostitution legislation in Canada by criminalizing the purchase of sex -- but not its sale.
Through the law, the government is also cracking down on all those who profit from the sale of sex.
"We will hold those who are advertising -- not the prostitute themselves, but those who are advertising these services either through papers or online -- also to criminal account," Justice Minister Peter MacKay said last July.
Klein said Now has sought advice from one of the lawyers behind the Supreme Court challenge.
"This is another area of the law which just makes the lives of sex workers really difficult and of course attacks their ability to earn a living," she said.
"But the law does say that sex workers themselves are allowed to advertise, and our legal advisers understand that to include the publication of their ads in our publication."
In Vancouver, sex workers are already reporting that some online advertising services are refusing to take ads for explicit sexual services, said Kerry Porth, a board member of Pivot Legal Aid Society in Vancouver and a former prostitute.
"It makes it harder to work indoors if you can't actually advertise where you are and what you're doing," she said.
Not everyone is opposed to the ban.
RELATED STORIES
Prostitution law comes into force on day of action on violence against women
"We support the section of the bill that criminalizes advertising of sexual services because of the role that advertising plays in normalizing and entrenching racist and sexist stereotypes," Suzanne Jay of the group Asian Women Coalition Ending Prostitution told a House of Commons committee.
In the course of its studies of the bill, the House of Commons and Senate heard a wide-ranging variety of opinions and perspectives from more than 100 witnesses.
Their testimony exposed a divide between those who see prostitutes as victims and others who consider prostitution a career choice.
Though the government considers prostitution a crime against women that must be eradicated, they seem sensitive to the distinction.
The bill was accompanied by $20 million in funding over five years for exit strategies, a measure that was supposed to be emphasized on the bill came into force.
But when the government realized that day was Dec. 6, which happened to be the National Day for Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, they quietly announced the funding a few days earlier.
Some say it's entirely appropriate for the bill to come into force on Saturday.
"I think it's tremendous it becomes law on Dec. 6," said Megan Walker, the executive director of the London Abused Women's Centre, which works with prostitutes among other women.
"We believe that prostitution is men's violence against women so we're happy to see this action that's been taken."
Walker was among the dozens of witnesses who told the government the $20 million wasn't enough, though she said her agency sill hopes to get some of the funding to hire an additional staff worker.
"Even if the government had announced $50 million across the country or whatever amount they determined, likely people would complain, including us, its not enough," she said.
The only way to solve prostitution is to address what leads to it, said Kate Gibson, the executive director of the Wish Drop-in Centre Society in Vancouver, which works with survival sex workers.
Divided evenly amongst the provinces and then amongst sex workers themselves, $20 million would amount to $47.02 a year per sex worker, Gibson said -- a paltry sum.
"They think they are going to end something that is rooted in economics and historical trauma," she said of the government's efforts.
"They don't want to address any of that."


Ladies, be careful not to spend that $47.02 all in one place. Fml!
 

squeezer

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2010
21,360
16,035
113
I'm curious as to the stand The Sun Newpaper (Reform Party mouth piece) and The Star have taken to running adults ads??
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
32,104
2,648
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
Just heard on CP24 that Premier Wynne does not believe that c-36 will not protect sex workers and asked her attorney general for constitutional opinion on c-36
 

DigitallyYours

Off TERB indefinitely
Oct 31, 2010
1,540
0
0
so now it's up to the attorney general to decide whether or not to refer the bill to the court of appeal
Any provincial government can send any law for a reference to their province's court of appeal. It's the province's cabinet I believe who has ultimate authority to ask for a reference, not the AG.

I'm not sure why there's so much pressure on Ontario to do it. BC is another good choice.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts