Prostitution case to begin

It is not going fly and I am sorry to say but these are not the right ladies to representing the escort community. I know all 3 women and although their intentions are good, they focus more on SW then escorts and they are not professional enough for a court room.

This is my opinion only of course, but they have not thought this through completely either. Yes we would like incalls to be legal but at what price. The price of the government having control. I don't think so.

I will go off on a rant if I continue in this thread. Let's just say I hope it fails until someone else can properly represent the escort community.
 
City bylaws could stop S.W. from working where ever they pleased.

I think if S.W. was legal more gals would speak up to report abuse by a pimp.

If the sex trade was more open and LEGAL, maybe the image would change.

Stripping is legal but are there guys looking to hire gals getting of the buses to work at the local strip club, none I ever seen.

If the laws get throw out don't worry, the ruling would be appealed and new laws written up in case the appeal failed.

Nothing is going to change unless people push for changes.

If the criminal code can't control streetwalkers, what makes you think a parking ticket will? The only thing that will happen is a windfall for the city treasury.

As for girls being afraid to talk to the police, they should know about the SVU in the Sex Crimes section of the TPS. Wendy Leaver does outreach to try to ensure that the girls know that they can be protected by the law. And she has had some success. But decriminalizing street walking is not going to stop the abuse of women by predators, the women are not magically going to run to the police for help, and what you want to see changed will not.

How much more open do you need the sex trade to be before it is "accepted"? It is in the newspapers, on the internet and certainly is not illegal. Acceptance is not a matter of changing the laws, it is a matter of changing attitudes. And you are not going to get wives lining up to support their husbands going to a brothel. And you are not going to get husbands publicly supporting prostitution.

These women want to decriminalize prostitution, they do not want to legalize it. They do not want to see the government step in to regulate the sex trade, but that is exactly what will happen if they are successful.
 
Bottom line is incalls could be legalized if it was shown that the gov't could benefit by taxes, hotels by increased revenues (giving additional taxes).

The biggest problem is proving that legalization will not increase drug use and human trafficing.

I personally think prostitution and drugs are separate issues, but in most cases LE, polititians & bible thumpers blurr them together.

Good luck to us all.

GDL
 
Im with Kya and Compromised.

By allowing the brothels to exist, one can imagine the types of places housing Asian and East European girls. The would be legal places, (dumps) which would cut off anyone, including the Police from ever getting inside to see ACTUALLY WHAT IS GOING ON!

Furthermore, you can rest assured that many many illegal aliens would end up coming to Canada to work in the now legal trade. With all the competition, prices would bottom out, forcing prostitutes to live more destitude lives than they already do. (Thailand is a prime example....where it is legal)

Not to mention, not only would they be making less...but they would now be taxed on it!!!


I AGREE..be careful what you wish for!!!!
 
By allowing the brothels to exist, one can imagine the types of places housing Asian and East European girls. The would be legal places, (dumps) which would cut off anyone, including the Police from ever getting inside to see ACTUALLY WHAT IS GOING ON!

Furthermore, you can rest assured that many many illegal aliens would end up coming to Canada to work in the now legal trade. With all the competition, prices would bottom out, forcing prostitutes to live more destitude lives than they already do. (Thailand is a prime example....where it is legal)

Not to mention, not only would they be making less...but they would now be taxed on it!!!


I AGREE..be careful what you wish for!!!!

It is KYA - Are you fucked? ;)
 
as i understand it the ontario superior court has original jurisdiction in ontario... so if it strikes down the bawdy house provisions at the end of this case incalls will be legal in ontario until (and if) the supreme court overrules it.
Original Juristiction merely means that it is the first court with the power to hear the case (i.e. the trial court).

I don't know about Ontario, but I would find it peculiar that a stay would not be issued while the case was still under appeal to The Court of Appeal for Ontario.
 
Some thoughts and clarifications;

The case would have to go to three courts, Superior Court of Justice, Ontario Court of Appeal, finally Supreme Court of Canada (there is a high probability that the Supremes will decline to hear the case)

At this point the key is the judge. I did not look at today’s list so I don’t know who is assigned to the case. But so much turns on who is assigned it cannot be emphasized enough. That is the reality of court.

Alan Young is not a trial lawyer. He is an academic. He started off quite promising, clerking at the Supreme Court of Canada and then went straight to teaching. He has a bad habit of treating the court with the intellectual disdain he shows his students, not a good strategy. He is only before judges once every couple of years as opposed to a real trial lawyer that is in the fray on a daily basis. He is very smart, and will be well prepared, but only on what he believes the issues to be, he is blind to other opinion and does not adjust his courtroom strategy to adapt to new argument. He is doing the case pro bono, but is collecting a six figure paycheque for being a law professor.

The majority of Canadians are against prostitution. Yes, I know, it is legal blah blah, blah. But a great many Canadians would like to see it made completely illegal without ambiguity. While that is a political argument best dealt with in the commons it is also the weakness to the Bedford case. They are attempting to introduce evidence of the current morals of the community. A difficult hurdle and not necessarily the best approach. Similarly arguments regarding safety are not the best (simply do not partake of the risky behaviour). This is not necessarily my opinion but it is a fair bet that this will be some of the argument put forward by the Crown and strongly considered by the judge. A simple dismissive of “that’s ridiculous” is not enough to turn a judge in your favour.

I suspect there will be little to see in court. The 56 witnesses have supplied affidavits, only a few may be called to testify if any. Then again it could turn into a total dog and pony show lasting weeks.

Kya is very astute in her comment that these are not the best people for a test case. I will say that I have met two of them and know their backgrounds. They are nice people who I would happily break bread with, and I will not make a disparaging comment about them, but they are not the best for this case.

It is also worth noting that a recent case in British Columbia, very similar to this completely failed.

On the other hand, you get the right judge on the right day and literally anything is possible. It is a safe be that regardless of the outcome the loser will appeal the case and it will be another two years before the Ontario court of Appeal gets into it. At that time it will again turn on who is selected for what would probably be a three judge panel (could go to five but highly unlikely). Do not expect any changes for quite a while, and what difference does it make, the Toronto police are only using the bawdy house and avails charges as a pile on for other charges stemming from slavery and underage girls.

I'll be here all week, try the veal and don't forget to tip your waitress.
 
Should also mention that the Catholic Civil Rights League was granted intervenor standing in the case. But that was done by way of an interlocutory appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Superior Court judge Matlow refused.

The fact that the court of appeal is willing to grant standing to some groups may be taken as an indication of their leanings with regard to public opinion.

As an aside you can google Justice Matlow and read the news articles about his recent problems. I doubt he will be hearing the case.

Copy of the decision
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2009/2009onca669/2009onca669.html
 
Well I'm keeping my hopes up things will change for the better. Seems better than 10 or 15 years ago. Incall places were not around Toronto like they are today even 5 years ago there wasn't as many big name escort companies running them.

The internet is to be given credit I feel, at first they tried stopping them but now see its about hopeless cause its too easy to run ads for them to get the word out where to call. Cell phones are another reason, cheap and easy to buy a phone that works anywhere.

Young people seem more open to this hobby and the old people are slowly dying off.

Now if the young people would just get out and vote more often!
 
Need to clarify a point.
The case was brought as a civil application not a defence to a criminal charge.

A civil application (as opposed to an ordinary civil lawsuit) is done entirely with written evidence to the court and not viva voce (live witness testimony).

For example Ms. Bedford would want to say something like prostitution should be a completely legal choice for women to earn a living and her constitutional rights are being violated. She does this in an affidavit. I would expect the affidavit to be in the hundreds of pages and extremely comprehensive.

The Crown is then allowed to cross-examine her on the contents of the affidavit. That is done at a court reporter's office and the transcripts are filed with the court. Same process for all witnesses for all sides.

Given that the intervernors were only recently given standing I would expect an adjournment so that they can prepare and submit written materials.

The actual trial is the lawyers making legal arguments to the judge with reference to the affidavits and the transcripts as evidence on a given issue. No actual witnesses will testify in court.
 
The Honourable Madam Justice Susan G. Himel is to hear the case.

The ladies have just picked up an enormous advantage.

Justice Himel is well known for advancing the rights of women and children. She also recently took the federal government to task of lack of disclosure in the case of the extradition of Abdullah Khadr to the United States.

For you American's that case involved terrorism, al-quada, and his brother is a prisoner at Guantanamo. Their father was a direct associate and worked with Osaman Bin-Laden. In other words she will not back down from telling the federal government it is off-side.

Advantage to Ms. Bedford. This is now going to be interesting.
 
Legal and logical arguements aside, Canada is fast achieving Nanny State status. That is, regulation and control of just about all (preferably all) human behaviour and jusrisdiction to make moral, ethical and behavioural choices for its citizenry (eg., which province just outlawed transfats?). My opinion is that the choice is to be left to the individual as to whether or not to engage in destructive behaviour (not that prostitution is destructive). But then again I am like a fish out of water in this country. I suspect that the state will not tolerate giving up such a juicy area of control. The ramifications are too extensive. So I suspect this will be a showcase demonstrating politicalization of the law, just as abortion was in the U.S.. Read Roe v. Wade (as well as whatever decision comes down the pipes in this case) and you will not be able to make any legal or common sense out of it.
 
What is the worst that can happen--no change in the laws. Even if one of the laws are change it be some good. The Star story explain how the internet is changing how SP work, less S.W. more just post their cell phone number and hook up indoors. We are still in the baby days of the internet, the next 20 years like everybody will be online off and on all day long. Even the cheapest cell phones will get you online.

Government laws will change, it just takes a long time.