Possible for C-36 to be immediatley S.C.C. CHALLENGED once Law.

[Siocnarf]

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?

No, because HJ and coitus are not the same service. I'm saying that if one specific service is legal (coitus or window washing) the government can impose restriction on how and where it can safely be conducted, so long as this does not create harm. For example, if the laws remained struck down streetwalkers would be allowed to operate on side walks but it would still be illegal for them to impede the flow of traffic. They could be arrested for this under the criminal code; not just for breaking traffic law.
...
I don't know where you read that pimping is now legal. Third parties are legal, so long as they are ''non-commercial'', which effectively mean that any of them can be declared illegal. About the evidence presented in committee, they are the same presented in court during Bedford. The government is picking some extreme exemple and tries to pass them off as the norm. It didn't work in Bedford and the SCC rejected their argument that it was inherently harmful. Just because they repeat the same flawed arguments in committee doesn't negate the previous decision based on facts.
...
You misunderstand what i mean. Government is not prevent from imposing reasonable safety measures such as seatbelts and hard hats. It is unconstitutional to make some law that increases the dangers. Saying that the activity is dangerous to start with is no excuse to prevent safety. Also keep in mind that the actual activity (sex) is perfectly legal, even though it can be argued to be dangerous. It is the exchange of money that must be demonstrated to be so dangerous as to justify a ban.

 

[SchlongConery]

It could be agued it would be for the government to establish their right

That's not how it works.

The person whose Charter rights are infringed by the government have to prove the government's action is infringing.

to punish our quiet enjoyment—private and consensual, albeit rewarded (which would be for them to prove)—so unfairly and so heavily.

You have no such Charter right to "quiet enjoyment".

You have rights to liberty, and security of the person.

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!

Sorry oldjones, I'm with you on this being a bad situation... but your legal logic is reversed when it comes to onus.

 

[MPAsquared]

No, because HJ and coitus are not the same service. I'm saying that if one specific service is legal (coitus or window washing) the government can impose restriction on how and where it can safely be conducted, so long as this does not create harm. For example, if the laws remained struck down streetwalkers would be allowed to operate on side walks but it would still be illegal for them to impede the flow of traffic. They could be arrested for this under the criminal code; not just for breaking traffic law.
...
I don't know where you read that pimping is now legal. Third parties are legal, so long as they are ''non-commercial'', which effectively mean that any of them can be declared illegal. About the evidence presented in committee, they are the same presented in court during Bedford. The government is picking some extreme exemple and tries to pass them off as the norm. It didn't work in Bedford and the SCC rejected their argument that it was inherently harmful. Just because they repeat the same flawed arguments in committee doesn't negate the previous decision based on facts.
...
You misunderstand what i mean. Government is not prevent from imposing reasonable safety measures such as seatbelts and hard hats. It is unconstitutional to make some law that increases the dangers. Saying that the activity is dangerous to start with is no excuse to prevent safety. Also keep in mind that the actual activity (sex) is perfectly legal, even though it can be argued to be dangerous. It is the exchange of money that must be demonstrated to be so dangerous as to justify a ban.

C36 legalizes pimping in essence. Via the guise of bodyguard, receptionist, driver. Scary fucken shit

 

[TeasePlease]

No, because HJ and coitus are not the same service. I'm saying that if one specific service is legal (coitus or window washing) the government can impose restriction on how and where it can safely be conducted, so long as this does not create harm. For example, if the laws remained struck down streetwalkers would be allowed to operate on side walks but it would still be illegal for them to impede the flow of traffic. They could be arrested for this under the criminal code; not just for breaking traffic law.
...
I don't know where you read that pimping is now legal. Third parties are legal, so long as they are ''non-commercial'', which effectively mean that any of them can be declared illegal. About the evidence presented in committee, they are the same presented in court during Bedford. The government is picking some extreme exemple and tries to pass them off as the norm. It didn't work in Bedford and the SCC rejected their argument that it was inherently harmful. Just because they repeat the same flawed arguments in committee doesn't negate the previous decision based on facts.
...
You misunderstand what i mean. Government is not prevent from imposing reasonable safety measures such as seatbelts and hard hats. It is unconstitutional to make some law that increases the dangers. Saying that the activity is dangerous to start with is no excuse to prevent safety. Also keep in mind that the actual activity (sex) is perfectly legal, even though it can be argued to be dangerous. It is the exchange of money that must be demonstrated to be so dangerous as to justify a ban.

Let me try to make this really simple:

1. Deeming an activity to be dangerous would surely justify prohibiting that activity would it not?

2. The argument for safety under Bedford was that complying with the law put women at risk. Under c36, the risk of danger arises from breaking the law (by helping clients break the law). Do you not see a fundamental difference?

3. if HJ is not the same as FS, why not oral or anal?

 

[latinboy]

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.

It's absolutely ludicrous to state clients face the same % of "some violence". At the very least, I'd really like to see his definition of "violence".

Let's go directly to murder stats for example:

Ninety-nine (99) prostitutes were murdered in Canada between 1997 and 2011. (this is a low figure as it applies only to the cases where police firmly established the murders were directly related to prostitution activities; however many other murders were suspected to be pros related but couldn't be proven).

85% of these 99 SP's were killed by their clients.

As recent as last month, Evelyn Castillo was brutally murdered at her Mississauga incall location, allegedly
by a client.

How many clients have been murdered by a prostitute?

 

[rld]

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.

That would be a new and novel finding.

 

[GPIDEAL]

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.

Thank you. I couldn't have answered it better.

 

[rld]

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.

Actually the government can do just that. Prohibited discriminatory grounds do not cover "occupation" in Canada at the moment.

 

[rld]

And someone will have to be charged with a crime under this new law before they can argue—all the way to the Supreme Court—that the new crime (or the old ones that continue in the new law) infringes on the human rights that are protected by the Charter.

Which is why the new law cannot immediately be challenged.

This is incorrect. Nobody was arrested or charged for the last successful challenge.

The reason that they might choose to wait, is to build a body of evidence that the new act is creating risk or harm. That can be very useful in a challenge of this nature, but not it is not a requirement.

 

[GPIDEAL]

That would be a new and novel finding.

Yes it would be novel.

Why can't Life and Liberty imply the freedom of two consenting adults to engage in sexual relations for hire, if there's no exploitation or harm?

How dare this government hold that women of sound mind and body, can't choose to sell sexual services when they also have the right to abort?

While the latter is to protect the security of a woman, it is also her freedom to choose what to do with her body, so the former is to protect her freedom to live her life as she chooses, so long as it does not harm anyone else OR society.

The government of this country cannot create a law that infringes on such free thinking women, even if in they are in the minority which isn't the case, but it seems that it is only protecting their Victorian or radical feminist ideology.

 

[daydreamer41]

It's absolutely ludicrous to state clients face the same % of "some violence". At the very least, I'd really like to see his definition of "violence".

Let's go directly to murder stats for example:

Ninety-nine (99) prostitutes were murdered in Canada between 1997 and 2011. (this is a low figure as it applies only to the cases where police firmly established the murders were directly related to prostitution activities; however many other murders were suspected to be pros related but couldn't be proven).

85% of these 99 SP's were killed by their clients.

As recent as last month, Evelyn Castillo was brutally murdered at her Mississauga incall location, allegedly
by a client.

How many clients have been murdered by a prostitute?

I don't know about Canada, but there's a possible case here:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/10/justice/prostitute-yacht-killing/

 

[GPIDEAL]

2. The argument for safety under Bedford was that complying with the law put women at risk. Under c36, the risk of danger arises from breaking the law (by helping clients break the law). Do you not see a fundamental difference?

I would argue that since it is not illegal to sell her sexual services, then she is not primarily helping her clients break the law but to work safely and ensure she collects her consideration for the provision of services in a safe, sane way.

Selling is legal, therefore, to make advertising or the collection of proceeds from the sale crimes, forces her to go underground and infringe on her security.

 

[daydreamer41]

One sided prosecution of prostitution analogy with illegal drugs

Ok, C-36 passed and in a few weeks it will be illegal for persons in Canada to purchase sex, including outcall.

I would like to make an analogy with the law as regards to purchasers being prosecuted and sellers not being prosecuted.

With Illegal non-prescription drugs:

Using the same analogy with C-36 as with drug transactions, the drug dealer would be immune from prosecution as long as he did not sell it near a school, and the buyer would be prosecuted. Would it cut down on demand? The druggie usually is in need of a fix. He or she thinks of the legal consequences after getting caught.

You would probably have an increase of supply of illegal drugs, but the sellers would be more discrete only to protect their buyers.

I am active on merb, but not here because I have visited Montreal but never Toronto. At the moment, there is not much discussion on merb about C-36. What guys have discussed beforehand on merb is they think that local police will ignore the law. I think that will be seen in time. I don't think it is safe to assume, one way or the other.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Ya, can't see guys being able to say they have the right under the charter to purchase sex.

I wouldn't rule it out.

 

[TeasePlease]

I would argue that since it is not illegal to sell her sexual services, then she is not primarily helping her clients break the law but to work safely and ensure she collects her consideration for the provision of services in a safe, sane way.

Selling is legal, therefore, to make advertising or the collection of proceeds from the sale crimes, forces her to go underground and infringe on her security.

Except that it's not illegal for her to advertise or collect proceeds for the sale of anything criminal. It is not illegal to sell her services. If she chooses to not screen properly (collect names, numbers, use a fixed place of business, etc), what would the primary purpose of those choices be but to help her clients evade prosecution?

Which brings us back to your other beloved argument...is a person entitled to earn a living in any way she chooses so long as it is not illegal? Of course! So what if the way she chooses to earn a living involves aiding and abetting a person to committing a crime (which itself a criminal activity)?

Again, the difference is that C36 put girls in danger because they have to break the law. Bedford's argument was that following the law put the girls in danger.

 

[TeasePlease]

I wouldn't rule it out.

Some Terbies have already volunteered to hoist the pittard. It's a moot argument. As long as the argument that prostitution is harmful to the providers, john's rights (or any individual's rights) are secondary.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Some Terbies have already volunteered to hoist the pittard. It's a moot argument. As long as the argument that prostitution is harmful to the providers, john's rights (or any individual's rights) are secondary.

It's the government's argument. Senator Jaffer explained how there were many SPs who she spoke of that were not harmed. They may be in the majority too, but if not, isn't Canada also about protecting the rights of minorities?

 

[daydreamer41]

Except that it's not illegal for her to advertise or collect proceeds for the sale of anything criminal. It is not illegal to sell her services. If she chooses to not screen properly (collect names, numbers, use a fixed place of business, etc), what would the primary purpose of those choices be but to help her clients evade prosecution?

Which brings us back to your other beloved argument...is a person entitled to earn a living in any way she chooses so long as it is not illegal? Of course! So what if the way she chooses to earn a living involves aiding and abetting a person to committing a crime (which itself a criminal activity)?

Again, the difference is that C36 put girls in danger because they have to break the law. Bedford's argument was that following the law put the girls in danger.

From a client's standpoint, would the sex seller be aiding and abetting the client's illegal act? How can it be completely legal if one side of the transaction is illegal?

 

[rld]

Yes it would be novel.

Why can't Life and Liberty imply the freedom of two consenting adults to engage in sexual relations for hire, if there's no exploitation or harm?

How dare this government hold that women of sound mind and body, can't choose to sell sexual services when they also have the right to abort?

While the latter is to protect the security of a woman, it is also her freedom to choose what to do with her body, so the former is to protect her freedom to live her life as she chooses, so long as it does not harm anyone else OR society.

The government of this country cannot create a law that infringes on such free thinking women, even if in they are in the minority which isn't the case, but it seems that it is only protecting their Victorian or radical feminist ideology.

I think your view of s.7 is far broader than the Supremes', who have held that a law can only be found to violate this section of the Charter if it is a) arbitrary (this one is not), b) overbroad (don't think this one here) or c) grossly disproportionate (best shot here but I am still betting a loser).

I would not hold my breath waiting for the judiciary to rescue us from this poor policy.

 

[rld]

It's the government's argument. Senator Jaffer explained how there were many SPs who she spoke of that were not harmed. They may be in the majority too, but if not, isn't Canada also about protecting the rights of minorities?

I don't think "johns" have much of a shot at being declared a protected minority.