Then the Grits need to have their feet held to the fire as to what action they would actually take, before anyone votes for them merely because they are not the Conservative Party. If in fact their policy would be no different on this point than the Conservatives, then other factors should take greater precedence.
Possible for C-36 to be immediatley S.C.C. CHALLENGED once Law.
- Thread starter Toronto`s Finest
- Start date
I think Freedom is saying that if Alan Young challenged certain parts of the existing law, it may cause an undesired reaction by the government to fully criminalize prostitution. Recall that many complained that Bedford should've let sleeping dogs lie.
Ya, can't see guys being able to say they have the right under the charter to purchase sex.
Yes. Also, while you can't enshrine anybody's right to a particular profession, I submit that the Charter implies that you have a right to make a living, provided it does not infringe on anybody else's rights or laws regulation professions or businesses.
To paraphrase Barnum: No one will go broke betting on the pusilanimity of ordinary men.
As far as I can see, all the dangers that were cited in the SCC's Bedford ruling still exist for the providers, although they commit no crime and are under no prohibition. But now the whole class of purchasers—usually guys—faces the same unsafe environment, as well as a criminal penalty applied essentially on a gender basis, which makes the providers' lot even more hazardous.
Not to mention that it's no business of anyone's—and most certainly not the criminal justice system's—why my partner of the moment and I agreed to have sex. It could be agued it would be for the government to establish their right to punish our quiet enjoyment—private and consensual, albeit rewarded (which would be for them to prove)—so unfairly and so heavily. They'd have to prove this was the sort of trespass on everyone's rights that was justifiable in a free and democratic society, or lose the case.
Otherwise they could make anything a crime. Gee! Like not paying for sex—which would certainly wipe out any 'disadvantaged underclass forced into sexual slavery'—perish the thought!
That's interesting. I wasn't aware that selling sex was in the criminal code. How did they rule on a non-existent law?
Conversely, why do you think they would rule as such if there was a law prohibiting the sale of sex?
It would force workers to not work in those safe brothels. Which is pretty much the same reason the old law was unconstitutional. If it's legal they have a right to make a living safely.
You can't just say ''we don't like that, so we're gonna make it illegal''. You have to have a good reason, otherwise it's discrimination. Banning squeegees who impede traffic is not the same as banning any form of commercial window washing. You can still pay someone to have you window washed; just not in the middle of the traffic. Same with gambling and many other activities.
No matter exactly which angle they try for the challenge, the government is going to have to prove that sex work is inherently degrading and harmful. The courts will weigh the so called ''benefits'' to society vs the harm the law causes to the workers. Moral arguments will not stand up in court and we know they have no factual evidence.
On WHAT basis do you claim that the johns are getting beaten up, robbed, and otherwise victimized by prostitutes?
This is beyond ridiculous.
I know it's been successfully challenged for medical purpose. I don't know enough about pot to really discuss the legality of it and if it could successfully be challenged in the future. Just saying pot is less dangerous than some other legal substance is not a valid argument in court I think. With that argument one could just as well say we need to criminalize these other dangerous substances.
Constitutional challenges are very expensive and time consuming. With pot there is a fairly good chance that it's going to be legalized some day without the need for a challenge.
Bill C36 throws the client (I hate the word john) into possible dangers.
If a pimp is involved and beats the living crap out of the client, the client cannot go to the police.
If a woman holds a client for more money with the threat of going to the police.
A client can easily be a victim of a scrupulous pimp or sex worker especially when we cannot report the crime without being criminalized.
Chris Atchison said the same thing in Committee. He is a sociologist expert who studies clients. His studies showed the violence in this job exists both ways. Similar % of clients and prostitutes report having been subject to some violence.
I would like to see is the Supreme Court Justices get some back bone and call the Conservative MP's and Senators into the court room and sentence each and everyone of them to a prison term for contempt of court. If it was an ordinary civilian like you or I that told the Justices to go fuck off the strong arm of the law would hit us like a ton of bricks. Why are assholes not treated similarly?
No. But is the dealer a victim? Most drug dealers do so for financial gain. Poor job options, lack of education or housing, etc. They choose to profit on selling. Is the manufacturer a pimp? Exploitation? Does he need "rescue"? But the purchaser is the criminal? Bill c36 is so fucked up & ass backwards. Send those dealers to religious camps, then dump them back on the streets. That outta stop demand. Lol!
I say we end our suffering of c36 by all of us becoming Buddhist. We then attempt to reach Nirvana, but if we fail we can always try to become one with each other through sharing our mutual bliss. Now as with all religions I assume there is a monetary gift given to the religious guides in this case our well-reviewed providers that are experts in the field of making us one with everything. After all when one sees a service provider and achieves a blissful union with that divine creation all men worship, all aversions, fires of desires and delusions are finally extinguished. A point we men know as achieving blissful egolessness and feeling like we are one with the supreme beings. Or am I wrong to think this way after hearing so many times Oh God! Oh God! I am coming!! 
There's no disputing the practical effect of C36, but as you point out in your statement, a material difference in facts exist. (As compared to Bedford)
The ban of squeegee kids was not on those who impede traffic. It is a blanket ban. so which is it? Do people have the right to make a living safely or not? If so, why should squeegee kids be banned? Why can't they be allowed to work safely?
As for the inherent harm in sexwork, how do you respond to the days of testimony dredged up by c36 supporters? The ex-sexworkers speaking of their woes? Do you assume that all sensors in Canada is rainbows and unicorns?
it's easy to win debates when you ignore what the other side is saying, I suppose.
How many jobs have situations where people have been abused, harassed and exploited? How many jobs include disgusting tasks with very little pay? At the same time every job has it's good stories, its happy people who enjoy doing what they do. Why make victims out of people who do not consider themselves victims and attempt to take away their livelihood because a few who could have gotten the help if they only asked? Coercion, forced confinement, assault as far as I know have always been crimes, no?
The difference is that they are typically men. If drug dealers were mostly women then it would be seen as a form of exploitation and they would get immunity. This is one reason why this law is discriminatory
They are not prevented from cleaning windows for a living. They simply have to do it at a car wash instead of in the middle of the street. Even if prostitution was legal the government could decide where and how it is possible to do safely and that would be constitutionnal.
These woes of those witnesses happened under the old laws. Which were recognized by the SCC as creating and exacerbating the very conditions these witnesses describes. They are using the problems caused by the law to justify the need for a law. There is always some potential danger, but this can be made a lot safer with good laws (inherently degrading and harmful means that it is always so in every single case, not just risky). People are allowed to choose the kind of risk they want to take in their job and the point is the law cannot needlessly increase the danger. For the cases where a pimp forces someone to take these risk, there are already laws against that.
I agree.
So I guess our argument is that life sucks everywhere so we shouldn't worry about one group in particular?
Of course that logic is false.
As for turning volunteers into victims...well, their rationale is plainly stated. This is plainly a paternalistic attitude, which seems fundamentally inconsistent with the traditional CPC view of lower case "g" government and respecting individual rights. As I've said before, it's hypocrisy plain and simple.
What would be your reply if body rub parlours, providing HJ, were allowed by not incalls? Wouldn't SPs still be permitted to "clean windows", so to speak?
I'm not sure if you were watching the same evidence I saw. Pimping was illegal before and now it is not. What were those ex-sexworkers complaining about with C36???
So people should be allowed to choose their risks assumed? Why do we have motorcycle helmet laws? Why seatbelt? Why hardhats and steel toe boots? Clearly the government believes that there are examples in which they should protect citizens from themselves, and we as a society have generally agreed with those examples.
I understand your end goal, and I agree. But this isn't about strict legality. This is about morality.
