Ontario to stop prosecuting sex cases
- Thread starter Mr Deeds
- Start date
Did you read the comments under the story? Interesting indeed .......
My fave:
"Just as I was sure they were THIS close to stamping out prostitution for good after a few thousand years of human history...."
I guess the Feds didn't take History or slept through those classes in High school. They're seeming to be stupid enough to think so. Police agencies just want MORE laws so as to keep busy!! Make work/job program for the cops.
"My case: If I pay a woman for sex, I am breaking the law. However if I did the same, but filmed it and put it on the internet to be sold as porn, I wouldnt be breaking the law. Makes a lot of sense dont it?:
Family Guy did a joke about this, probably where they got it.
Family Guy did a joke about this, probably where they got it.
No more illogical than soldiers not committing murder if they kill in the context of war.
btw, you aren't paying a woman for sex. You're paying her for an artistic performance as content in adult entertainment.
Interesting and telling that they only refer to saying they are going to consult with POLICE to draft new legislation.
Police?
What expertise do the police have regarding prostitution outside of enforcement of laws Parliament passes? And their record of enforcement using the existing laws vis a vis human trafficking, the serial pig farmer murderer etc is DISGUSTINGLY ABYSMAL!
The police are charged with enforcing laws, not creating them.
If the government of the people was sincere in wanting to protect vulnerable women, they should ask the women that are vulnerable how they can best protect them and the inevitable future sex workers.
Or maybe they could provide leadership and insist that the police use the existing laws and tools they have to effect the same protection of society?
Because, as the Senate and Liberal Gas Plant frauds conclusively prove, they are duplicitous self-aggrandizing con men.
I'm pleasantly surprised that so many comments were made supporting both this decision, and overall legalization.
Then you have those nutjobs who think this decision somehow decriminalizes assault and blackmail (aka. living off the avails). News flash, a large chunk of our population live off the avails of others; just not in prostitution. I'm pretty sure assault and blackmail have been illegal all this time! In fact, the whole point of decriminalizing it is to make it easier to prosecute cases of exploitation.
Then you have those nutjobs who think this decision somehow decriminalizes assault and blackmail (aka. living off the avails). News flash, a large chunk of our population live off the avails of others; just not in prostitution. I'm pretty sure assault and blackmail have been illegal all this time! In fact, the whole point of decriminalizing it is to make it easier to prosecute cases of exploitation.
I quote from the article...
"Ontario will not be pursuing cases involving charges of keeping a common bawdy house, living on the avails of prostitution, or communicating for the purposes of prostitution in a public place — the three prostitution-related offences the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional."
I notice that there is no mention of "being found in a bawdy house" as something that will no longer be prosecuted. Though I guess that was not struck-down, I find it's absence interesting given that being a found in is that charge that relates to us "Johns"
"Ontario will not be pursuing cases involving charges of keeping a common bawdy house, living on the avails of prostitution, or communicating for the purposes of prostitution in a public place — the three prostitution-related offences the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional."
I notice that there is no mention of "being found in a bawdy house" as something that will no longer be prosecuted. Though I guess that was not struck-down, I find it's absence interesting given that being a found in is that charge that relates to us "Johns"
[QUOTprovinces828794]I quote from the article...
"Ontario will not be pursuing cases involving charges of keeping a common bawdy house, living on the avails of prostitution, or communicating for the purposes of prostitution in a public place — the three prostitution-related offences the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional."
I notice that there is no mention of "being found in a bawdy house" as something that will no longer be prosecuted. Though I guess that was not struck-down, I find it's absence interesting given that being a found in is that charge that relates to us "Johns"[/QUOTE]
I would be guessing that's because that law was not challenged and declared unconstitutional. It's seems it would be problematic to succeed with such a charge given the law against running a bawdy house is invalid. Still with Peter Mackay declaring that he expects the provinces to continue to prosecute these charges until the new law (s) are out it's an open issue. Just don't know where the Cons are going to go.
"Ontario will not be pursuing cases involving charges of keeping a common bawdy house, living on the avails of prostitution, or communicating for the purposes of prostitution in a public place — the three prostitution-related offences the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional."
I notice that there is no mention of "being found in a bawdy house" as something that will no longer be prosecuted. Though I guess that was not struck-down, I find it's absence interesting given that being a found in is that charge that relates to us "Johns"[/QUOTE]
I would be guessing that's because that law was not challenged and declared unconstitutional. It's seems it would be problematic to succeed with such a charge given the law against running a bawdy house is invalid. Still with Peter Mackay declaring that he expects the provinces to continue to prosecute these charges until the new law (s) are out it's an open issue. Just don't know where the Cons are going to go.
I`m for hire as a consultant
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ainst-police-harassment&p=4824695#post4824695
