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

[fuji]

The SCC is not taking any activist stance, nor challenging parliament authority. They simply apply the Charter, which is the highest law in the land, superseding all the other ones.

I don't expect you to agree with the conservative view, I certainly don't, but it would help your understanding of the situation to know how the conservatives see it. They certainly believe that the SCC has overstepped its bounds and moved from upholding law to writing law. You will mature as a debater when you can comprehend the other side's view, even when you disagree.

Failing to understand the politics is why so many of you failed to see that C36 was the inevitable result of Bedford.

And like MPAsquared said, you seem to not realize the separation of legal power. Parliament's job is completely over with C-36. They have no influence on what happens next

Depends on the jurisdiction. The conservatives do control enforcement in many judicatories and they are seeking a showdown with the SCC.

They do not control enforcement in Toronto, but Toronto is not all of Canada. There are numerous jurisdictions policed by the RCMP, and there are numerous places where conservative politicians are in power.

Those of you who said the conservatives do bit contain enforcement are hilariously narrow minded and myopic. You do not even remotely understand the political landscape.

 

[Siocnarf]

...They certainly believe that the SCC has overstepped its bounds and moved from upholding law to writing law. You will mature as a debater when you can comprehend the other side's view, even when you disagree.

I understand that's Harper's rhetoric but he's not really fooling many people. You have to make a distinction between what they ''believe'' and what they claim they believe. Harper's real beef is with the constitution itself more than with the courts. Even before the bill was tabled I knew he could likely make something completely unconstitutional. That is a widely-used strategy politicians use to please their base and then blame the ''liberal'' courts when the inevitable striking down occurs. I agree Harper's reaction to Bedford is not surprising in light of all the other unconstitutional decisions he made.

Still the facts are that there is little support for this bill. Some local LE might be all for it, but we are talking in general terms. It was clearly meant as a feel-good bill to please their base while allowing LE to carry on as they were before. I'm sure Harper understands very well that it will be destroyed in court and that enforcement will not change significantly in the meantime. He looked good to his base by making it and he will also look good when he blames the courts and the LE for it's failure (if he's still around at that time).

On a side note you seem to be contradicting your previous opinion. You said before that you believed that the law has a serious chance of being upheld. If that is the case, how would a favorable decision help Harper discredit the SCC? And why would he be looking for a challenge in that case?

 

[TeasePlease]

You are forgetting that enforcement are the ones who implement law. Not politicians. Several cities & provinces have denounced the law. So you think Harper himself is going to go personally & enforce? Or make people enforce? Is he gonna pay for that? Lol! Now you are just talking crazy talk.

That's crazy talk. You forget that enforcement answers to politicians. And yes, they (federal, provincial and municipal government) can "make" the police enforce laws. That's why they're called "sworn members". They've sworn to uphold the law. It's not their call to set, adjudge or set aside laws. That's for the lawmakers...i.e., the politicians. If LE doesn't agree with the politicians, they can either resign or stage a coup d'etat. Can it happen? Sure! Look at the shitstorm that happened just yesterday between the TPS board chair and Blair. Then consider Blair's present career trajectory.....

As for whether it's Harper himself, well, don't forget that most of the country (by land mass) is policed by federal officers.

The hope we have is that the governors of cities like Vancouver and Montreal have rejected the law, which then allows the LE under their supervision to say they won't enforce it. sort of.

 

[TeasePlease]

The SCC is not taking any activist stance, nor challenging parliament authority. They simply apply the Charter, which is the highest law in the land, superseding all the other ones.

And like MPAsquared said, you seem to not realize the separation of legal power. Parliament's job is completely over with C-36. They have no influence on what happens next and Harper is not the one choosing which cases go to court. If Harper wants to have the province and crown on board for enforcement he should have made sure to consult them beforehand.

Lol. I guess activism is kinda like rebellion. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist? It's all a matter of perspective.

Don't kid yourself about case strategy. The federal and provincial attorneys general coordinate very closely on matters of national importance. It was obvious in cases like tobacco class actions or residential schools or same sex rights.

Whether a particular AG agrees with a position is irrelevant. Like the Crown attorney, his/her job is to advocate the Crown. I recall reading an article in the past year about a US state AG who is gay himself, but his state law was anti-homosexual. He was questioned about his predicament. He simply said that he had a job to do and he would do it.

Of course, if your heart's not in it, how good fight could you put up?

 

[Siocnarf]

That's crazy talk. You forget that enforcement answers to politicians.

Enforcement for something like consensual prostitution is handled by local LE, not by the RCMP. Prosecution is handled by the provinces, not the federal. So the enforcement for this is totally up to the cities and province and Harper has no direct control over it. Unless you're in a city in a province where everyone is very chummy with Harper, they are not going to just follow his wishes.

In a perfect world, they would have consulted with municipalities and provinces and come up with a law they all agree to enforce in a certain way. Presently there is a complete disconnect between the legislative and the enforcement on this issue.

Don't kid yourself about case strategy. The federal and provincial attorneys general coordinate very closely on matters of national importance.

Yes, but policing local hookers is not really a matter of national importance. In cases of organized crime and human trafficking, yes, but not your day to day sex work. And this coordination you speak of goes both ways. If the fed refuses to consult the provinces when drafting a law they can't really expect any cooperation from them.

 

[TeasePlease]

Ok. So we're betting our chances on no one liking Harper (or the Conservative party) and sex work having no links to drugs or organized crime?

I feel so warm and fuzzy, I'm sweating.

 

[fuji]

Enforcement for something like consensual prostitution is handled by local LE, not by the RCMP.

The is only true in places like Ontario. In quite a lot of Canada it is enforced by the RCMP.

 

[Titalian]

Quebec LE have already voiced their opinion on this ludicrous law !!!

 

[oldjones]

The is only true in places like Ontario. In quite a lot of Canada it is enforced by the RCMP.

Howver they are just rent-a-cops hired out by the RCMP's Contract Services and answerable (after a fashion) to the provoncial and local authorities responsible for law enforcement under the Constitution.

That tawdry and inefficient arrangement is at the root of the poor performance of many RCMP officers in remote places, but it suits the current government—and every government previous—to have a large and beloved federal force it can rent at low cost to provinces rich in votes, while sparing them the costs of running their own police forces as Quebec, Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador do.

Functioning as local cops, the RCMP, would not be taking thgeir C36 enforcement orders from Ottawa. But that's where any discipline for improper enforcement would come from.

 

[fuji]

It is also the case that conservatives, in one form or another, is in control of local law enforcement through municipal and provincial leadership, and while they may not CURRENTLY control the Ontario legislature, they certainly hope to in the next election. While the Ontario PC's and the Federal C's are not formally the same party, they are certainly aligned around a number of issues.

So, yes, enforcement is local, and the law has been passed federally, and it DOES take both federal and provincial collaboration to do what they want to do -- but you can bet your bottom dollar that they are counting on getting a case brought somewhere in Canada. Their goal is to show, repeatedly, that the SCC is out of touch with Parliament, the only legitimate representation of the people, and therefore should be reformed.

 

[fuji]

Not that it doesn't happen elsewhere, but prostitution is primarily an issue in large, urban areas. Most major cities and agglomerations in Canada have their own police forces. As far as I know, the only place where RCMP plays a significant role in enforcement, in a large densely populated context, is in the lower Mainland of B.C., in the areas surrounding Vancouver - and it's the largest division of the RCMP.

While you may think there is no prostitution in smaller cities I assure you that the trade is alive and well in New Brunswick and other places too. But surely you are right that BC has the largest number is cities directly policed by the RCMP.

 

[Titalian]

Not that it doesn't happen elsewhere, but prostitution is primarily an issue in large, urban areas. Most major cities and agglomerations in Canada have their own police forces. As far as I know, the only place where RCMP plays a significant role in enforcement, in a large densely populated context, is in the lower Mainland of B.C., in the areas surrounding Vancouver - and it's the largest division of the RCMP.

Thats interesting, I didn't realise the RCMP played such a big role enforcing the law, in this area of the country. Which leads me to think, that maybe
they somewhat influenced this article posted on another thread http://vancouver.ca/news-calendar/city-response-to-passing-of-bill-c-36.aspx
If any LE agency would have insite on prostitution as a whole, I would be the RCMP. Maybe they as well, are worried about the repercussions of this new law??

 

[oldjones]

I know that it happens in smaller communities, but it's still primarily an urban issue. And for NB, it means it's mostly an issue in Bathurst, Edmunston, Saint John, Miramichi, and Fredericton - all of which have their own police forces. There's only Moncton as far as I know, which depends on the RCMP.

From the RCMP\GRC site:The RCMP currently provides contract policing services to eight provinces (Ontario and Quebec have their own provincial police service), three territories and under direct contract to some 150 municipalities in Canada

 

[Titalian]

As far as I know, RCMP wasn't involved in drafting the City of Vancouver's response to C-36 - it was rather the Vancouver Police Department. So the policy is strictly for Vancouver itself, not the outlying areas.

If you go on PERB, there is a discussion going on this subject in the Lounge (no need to be a member to have access), and the unsuccessful attempts (so far) to have this policy extended outside of Vancouver proper.

I am a member, I'll check that out thanks

 

[scorpio82]

I found a great website.www.maggiestoronto.ca
Great information on this Bill

 

[GPIDEAL]

I don't expect you to agree with the conservative view, I certainly don't, but it would help your understanding of the situation to know how the conservatives see it. They certainly believe that the SCC has overstepped its bounds and moved from upholding law to writing law. You will mature as a debater when you can comprehend the other side's view, even when you disagree.

Failing to understand the politics is why so many of you failed to see that C36 was the inevitable result of Bedford.




Depends on the jurisdiction. The conservatives do control enforcement in many judicatories and they are seeking a showdown with the SCC.

They do not control enforcement in Toronto, but Toronto is not all of Canada. There are numerous jurisdictions policed by the RCMP, and there are numerous places where conservative politicians are in power.

Those of you who said the conservatives do bit contain enforcement are hilariously narrow minded and myopic. You do not even remotely understand the political landscape.

Fuji stop being an arrogant ass and clear your inbox lol.

(I agree that the Cons have their agenda to fulfill, and want to reform the SCC).

 

[Siocnarf]

...but you can bet your bottom dollar that they are counting on getting a case brought somewhere in Canada. Their goal is to show, repeatedly, that the SCC is out of touch with Parliament, the only legitimate representation of the people, and therefore should be reformed.

You might be right on this point, but my bottom dollar is going to be used hiring escorts, not on betting events.:biggrin1:
I'm sure there's going to be some cases somewhere in Canada. Nobody is saying that's unlikely.There's been arrest with the old law and there will be some with the new ones. We just have to keep things in perspective. This is a large country and enforcement is sure to be very unequal, but that's nothing new.

But you didn't answer my question: if you think the law is unlikely to be struck down (as you mentioned elsewhere) how would a challenge help Harper take down the SCC? That stategy only makes sense if the law is likely to fail. And this would likely backfire on Harper, because most of the legal experts in the land already warned him of likely charter issues. Only a blind die-hard fan of Harper would blame the court for throwing that law out.

If any LE agency would have insite on prostitution as a whole, I would be the RCMP. Maybe they as well, are worried about the repercussions of this new law??

The Pickton disaster made them look pretty bad, so I think they have a lot of incentive in avoiding enforcement that would repeat the same kind of dangers.

 

[fuji]

But you didn't answer my question: if you think the law is unlikely to be struck down (as you mentioned elsewhere) how would a challenge help Harper take down the SCC? .

There are different sections. I think the communications section is pretty clearly Parliament thumbing its nose at the SCC. On the other hand, I really don't think there is any clear reason to believe the criminalization of purchase will be found unconstitutional.

In any case, the C's see it as a win win -- either they get to enact ultra conservative social morality legislation, or they get to take on the SCC. I don't think they see a downside either way. The idea that they are somehow afraid of the SCC or afraid of their legislation being challenged is just wrong.

 

[fuji]

In western Canada RCMP has control only over rural areas and not much prostitution happening there.Major cities like Vancouver Calgary or Edmonton have their own municipal police

However I think it's safe to say that in place like Edmonton the Conservatives do indeed control the local police force. When was the last time there was a non-conservative government in Alberta?

(I just checked -- the answer is 1971, they had the social conservative Christian oriented "Social Credit" party running things from '35 to '71).

 

[Siocnarf]

The idea that they are somehow afraid of the SCC or afraid of their legislation being challenged is just wrong.

I agree with that, but I never implied otherwise regarding Harper. With the number of challenges they had in the past Harper is certainly not afraid of another one. But this is such a small issue that I don't really see this law as some central plot to destroy the SCC. And like I said he's so obviously making all kind of unconstitutional decisions, no one is really surprised when they get overturned.

Provincial politicians and local LE on the other hand have to consider the realities and consequences of how they are going to enforce it; they don't live in a legislative fantasy-land. Most of them have things running smoothly and changing their ways of enforcement can have consequences that are going harm their communities and make their job more difficult.