Well there's already specific laws prohibiting human trafficking (s. 279) that are untouched by this decision, so if the courts were solely concerned with the human trafficking aspect they could have struck down s. 210 completely and still been able to prosecute people who are trafficking.
ONtarion Court Decision this Monday!
- Thread starter dreamblade
- Start date
Further clarification on what Dreamblade said:
210 overturn upheld
210 is keeping a common bawdy house, being found in a common bawdy house, being a landlord or tenant of a common bawdy house. Himel ruled this law is unconstitutional, the Ontario Court of Appeals agrees with her!
213(j) overturn upheld
213(j) is living off the avails of prostitution (taking money or gifts that are a result of prostitution). This would be stuff like an agency owner, a phone girl, a driver, a web designer, a photographer, etc but also friends and family of prostitutes receiving money or gifts (paying for Christmas presents, buying medication for dependents, etc). Himel ruled this law is unconstitutional and the Ontario Court of Appeals agrees with her!
Communicating for the purposes of prostitution in public is still illegal (213(c)). Phone calls, txts, emails and such are usually done in private.
I'm sure once Nikki has breathing space she'll come on and explain in more details. Press release starts now!! (519 Church St)
210 overturn upheld
210 is keeping a common bawdy house, being found in a common bawdy house, being a landlord or tenant of a common bawdy house. Himel ruled this law is unconstitutional, the Ontario Court of Appeals agrees with her!
213(j) overturn upheld
213(j) is living off the avails of prostitution (taking money or gifts that are a result of prostitution). This would be stuff like an agency owner, a phone girl, a driver, a web designer, a photographer, etc but also friends and family of prostitutes receiving money or gifts (paying for Christmas presents, buying medication for dependents, etc). Himel ruled this law is unconstitutional and the Ontario Court of Appeals agrees with her!
Communicating for the purposes of prostitution in public is still illegal (213(c)). Phone calls, txts, emails and such are usually done in private.
I'm sure once Nikki has breathing space she'll come on and explain in more details. Press release starts now!! (519 Church St)
Actually, all three of these laws are known as the anti-pimp laws and 2/3 overturns were upheld. Pimping as you're referring to it (the forcing of anyone to work in exploitative situations or contexts) is covered in other parts of the Criminal Code and was not being challenged at all. Same with trafficking, street harassment, child porn and pretty much everything else. "Pimping" as some people are using it on this thread (typically people providing and being paid for a service, like owners) is living off the avails and that overturn was upheld.
I think the new ruling still strongly prohibits the communication for the purpose, meaning streetwalkers.
what are you talking about,,,this is a total change. We can have private vip rooms again qith couches or even full on beds ......re-open the Fan!!!! And MP's will be fs and legal.
Communicating in Public meas just that. Phone calls, texts, emails are private.
Pimping is not a legal term. The Avails law, which was aimed at exploitative practices of what we call pimping, has been struck down because it's unconstitutional. There are provisions against trafficking still in place that will cover that nicely. The difference is that now, agency owners, phone staff, admin staff, drivers, and bodyguards, who could have been charged under this law are clear. Congrats guys and gals!
The link above provides a good summary of the state of the laws post-appeal decision. It sounds like the bawdy house law will be in place for the next year and the avails law for another month.
Actually the law does refer to pimps. I could track down the section of the criminal code if you want.
Can us law-tards get a 'prostitution for dummies' version of today's ruling? What actually happened today? Does it take place now, or in a year? Does this apply to the entire GTA? How is the laws different today than in the past? What does this mean for hobbyists?
You don't need a lawyer to answer that, I can.
It will still be against the law to 1) engage in sexual activity in a public place and 2) solicit for sex in public. Extra offerings in SCs are considered public places therefore still illegal (there is past precedent for this). MPs might become known as common bawdy houses but ... really I don't think that world will change much if at all. Sort of depends if the MPs are viewed as private places.
http://spoc.ca/Laws,_SPOC_challenge.pdf < cliff notes on the laws being challenged.
For clarity, this will not affect the following things:
- trafficking
- exploitation
- forced working conditions
- public decency laws
- communicating for the purposes of in public
These all are covered in other parts of the CC (or in the case of communicating, 213(c) which was overturned by Himel last year but the Court of Appeals disagrees with her- still illegal).
For clarity, this will not affect the following things:
- trafficking
- exploitation
- forced working conditions
- public decency laws
- communicating for the purposes of in public
These all are covered in other parts of the CC (or in the case of communicating, 213(c) which was overturned by Himel last year but the Court of Appeals disagrees with her- still illegal).
Only in higher court, which means the SCC. This decision was made based on an appeal.
