Supreme Court of Canada will release its decision on the Bedford, Lebovitch and Scott

[canada-man]

legal challenge Friday December 20, 2013.


this just in on the SPOC dot CA website





I am more worried what the Harper Regime do in reaction to this upcoming decision

 

[Summer]

legal challenge Friday December 20, 2013.


this just in on the SPOC dot CA website





I am more worried what the Harper Regime do in reaction to this upcoming decision

I heard reference to this upcoming release on the news, too. In that announcement they said the decision will be released on Wednesday.
Can't wait to hear the result.

 

[op12]

This is a constituional challenge. This may make it very hard for any party to fiddle with the law afterwards.

 

[eldoguy]

Weed and Prostiution, Billion$ industry, Canada what a beautiful country!:canada:

 

[Moviefan-2]

I am more worried what the Harper Regime do in reaction to this upcoming decision

I may be guilty of wishful thinking, but it's possible the government won't do anything.

Apart from the Constitutional issues, the government might decide it isn't worth the fight (for the sake of this discussion, I'm assuming the ruling is favourable to hobbyists). That would be more likely if the ruling is received favourably in the urban areas that Harper needs to hold in the next election.

Another complicating factor will be the divided reactions in the right-wing press. Some commentators are likely to denounce a pro-hobby ruling, but others on the right (eg., Terence Corcoran at the National Post, possibly Andrew Coyne) will likely applaud it.

The Conservatives have to be careful to keep the social conservative elements in check. Harper has had enough problems with the anti-abortion types in his caucus. He might decide to give this issue a pass.

Of course, it's also possible he could decide this is an easy issue to fight to help appease the social conservatives. In which case, my theory is shot to hell.

 

[d_jedi]

I think there's a very real risk this could backfire.
The court's ruling was on the premise that since prostitution is legal, the restrictions imposed by other related laws are unconstitutional.

If prostitution were made to be illegal, however..

I think there's a very real chance we'll see this happen. It appeals to both the Harper Conservative "base" and to certain feminists, who normally wouldn't support the Conservatives. Opposition will likely be minimal; very few people involved in the industry (hobbyists and SPs alike) will be willing to speak out on this..

 

[Ms.FemmeFatale]

I think there's a very real risk this could backfire.
The court's ruling was on the premise that since prostitution is legal, the restrictions imposed by other related laws are unconstitutional.

If prostitution were made to be illegal, however..

I think there's a very real chance we'll see this happen. It appeals to both the Harper Conservative "base" and to certain feminists, who normally wouldn't support the Conservatives. Opposition will likely be minimal; very few people involved in the industry (hobbyists and SPs alike) will be willing to speak out on this..

THIS!

It does not directly affect me any, but for the ladies and agencies I deal with I know many wish these women would NOT have decided for themselves to be the face of the escort industry and started this whole thing to begin with. It is hard for one group in the industry to be pushing for something like and then having a whole other group saying no, this is not what we want. It looks like division in the ranks so to speak and no body wants to start that "look" in this already taboo and so called troubled industry. If agency owners spoke out, they would be labeled as PIMP who are only doing so they want to continue to "exploit" escort which is for the most, totally not the case.

I am quite nervous for my friends in the industry about this ruling and what will be done after by the Harper government, future governments, and the hard core feminist who think every escort is damaged and needs saving.

 

[Summer]

Opposition will likely be minimal; very few people involved in the industry (hobbyists and SPs alike) will be willing to speak out on this..

Sadly, so true!

 

[TeasePlease]

This is a constituional challenge. This may make it very hard for any party to fiddle with the law afterwards.

Narrow thinking. You're assuming that the only option is to tweak to some variant of the same law.

I think there's a very real risk this could backfire.
The court's ruling was on the premise that since prostitution is legal, the restrictions imposed by other related laws are unconstitutional.

If prostitution were made to be illegal, however..

I think there's a very real chance we'll see this happen. It appeals to both the Harper Conservative "base" and to certain feminists, who normally wouldn't support the Conservatives. Opposition will likely be minimal; very few people involved in the industry (hobbyists and SPs alike) will be willing to speak out on this..

Well said. I'm glad you've been open to seeing the big picture.

 

[CUPID]

THIS!

It does not directly affect me any, but for the ladies and agencies I deal with I know many wish these women would NOT have decided for themselves to be the face of the escort industry and started this whole thing to begin with. It is hard for one group in the industry to be pushing for something like and then having a whole other group saying no, this is not what we want. It looks like division in the ranks so to speak and no body wants to start that "look" in this already taboo and so called troubled industry. If agency owners spoke out, they would be labeled as PIMP who are only doing so they want to continue to "exploit" escort which is for the most, totally not the case.

I am quite nervous for my friends in the industry about this ruling and what will be done after by the Harper government, future governments, and the hard core feminist who think every escort is damaged and needs saving.

+++1

 

[freedom3]

Mr. Young is an extraordinarily talented lawyer and lawyer professor. Straight out of school he clerked at the Supreme Court and his abilities are beyond a doubt. But in the same way some professors need to publish in various journals Mr. Young brings court cases.

He was instrumental in the changing of the laws regarding medical marijuana and then took up the cause of prostitution. He needs to have a cause that is somewhat salacious, clients that cannot afford the million dollars to take a case to the Supreme Court and most importantly, a case that will garner lots of press attention. The prostitution laws fit the bill perfectly.

That's very true. The only thing on his mind is getting his name in the paper.

 

[Ms.FemmeFatale]

This is indeed the critical issue.
Regardless of the decision of the SCC, Mr. Harper and company are free to craft a new law, and they certainly have a history of creating new criminal laws.

To my mind question becomes how can Mr. Harper spin the law to his best advantage given an upcoming election, and the negative brand image they are creating for Mr. Trudeau.

1] If the court says the law is fine, then Mr. Harper will probably do nothing.

2] If the court gives a strange split decision compromise that is difficult to understand then all sides will claim a partial victory in the press. It will run the news cycle, and things will stay pretty much as they are.

3] If the court strikes down the law then Mr. Harper can play politics with virtually everyone on this board. The number of scenarios is really quite vast.
He could leak a document proposing a very Draconian law as replacement, wait for Mr. Trudeau to take the bait, and then attack Trudeau, brand him an evil pot smoking whoremonger to the voting public, and then bring out the real law he plans for the election.
I would expect in that case that the men will be the target of arrest under a new law.

I could go on and on with possible scenarios but they are totally my speculation and would be better in the politics forum (which I stay well clear of).

With respect to FemmeFatale and Jillian's comment, keep in mind this entire case was really instigated not by SPOC and others working in the industry but by Alan Young.

Mr. Young is an extraordinarily talented lawyer and lawyer professor. Straight out of school he clerked at the Supreme Court and his abilities are beyond a doubt. But in the same way some professors need to publish in various journals Mr. Young brings court cases.

He was instrumental in the changing of the laws regarding medical marijuana and then took up the cause of prostitution. He needs to have a cause that is somewhat salacious, clients that cannot afford the million dollars to take a case to the Supreme Court and most importantly, a case that will garner lots of press attention. The prostitution laws fit the bill perfectly.

He may be the lawyer who brought it to the courts, but SPOC is the true initiator here. Just like a publishing company brings the world what an author wrote. SPOC is the author, Young is the publisher. I know Jillian will remember as well as I do the days before SPOC and therefore after. I even remember when they first launched their website. I remember how they handled many things, and I am sorry to say, but I also remember how they left a bad taste is a few mouths with the way they went about things from the beginning.

SPOC has been around for over 10 years ish. There were many who had high hopes for SPOC and what they wanted to bring to the industry back in the early 2000's. Sadly, SPOC decided to go the route they went and while they have some great support, as mentioned by others, not nearly as much support as TERB members would think based on the number of providers, agencies and hobbyist here. There is a reason for that.

So yes, while Young is brilliant, and clearly used this platform for many gains for many people including his own personal agenda, he still needed someone/thing to defend. SPOC's agenda and goals that they were already trying for but just didn't know how, were the perfect thing for him to grab onto.

However the point still remains, SPOC - even by title of their name, makes appearances as they speak for the whole of the escorting community and that is simply not the case. Not even close.

You are right however this is a very critical issue simply regarding the politics and it is a wonder if the time lines for the 2015 elections had any factor to play in all this. A little far fetched I admit but still makes you think and not in a good way.

 

[Ceiling Cat]

The decision will come down on Dec. 20 to minimize any fallout that may happen from the unhappy side for or against changes to the law. The government wants to present the decision and then close down quickly for the Christmas holidays hoping that the people that are unhappy with the decision will have cooled when the government resumes.

 

[afterhours]

The decision will come down on Dec. 20 to minimize any fallout that may happen from the unhappy side for or against changes to the law. The government wants to present the decision and then close down quickly for the Christmas holidays hoping that the people that are unhappy with the decision will have cooled when the government resumes.

right, cuz SPs and johns are ready to take to the streets and cause civil unrest.

 

[Perry Mason]

The decision will come down on Dec. 20 to minimize any fallout that may happen from the unhappy side for or against changes to the law. The government wants to present the decision and then close down quickly for the Christmas holidays hoping that the people that are unhappy with the decision will have cooled when the government resumes.

Sorry, this is sophistry!

The government has absolutely nothing to do with what, if and when the Supreme Court delivers a judgment.

Perry

 

[Ms.FemmeFatale]

Sorry, this is sophistry!

The government has absolutely nothing to do with what, if and when the Supreme Court delivers a judgment.

Perry

Par for the course is it not? LOL

 

[Aardvark154]

I think there's a very real risk this could backfire.
The court's ruling was on the premise that since prostitution is legal, the restrictions imposed by other related laws are unconstitutional.

If prostitution were made to be illegal, however..

I think there's a very real chance we'll see this happen. It appeals to both the Harper Conservative "base" and to certain feminists, who normally wouldn't support the Conservatives. Opposition will likely be minimal; very few people involved in the industry (hobbyists and SPs alike) will be willing to speak out on this..

++++++1

I have real fears this may prove to have been a Pyrrhic victory.


Great comment in #12 Joe

 

[afterhours]

it's interesting to see how this case has been met here with great enthusiasm, but as the moment of truth gets closer, people begin to understand who is profiting and whose livelihood is in danger.

 

[Aardvark154]

it's interesting to see how this case has been met here with great enthusiasm, but as the moment of truth gets closer, people begin to understand who is profiting and whose livelihood is in danger.

Well I believe I expressed some caution, but as I recall Joe, Perry and Oagre expressed grave doubts from the start.

 

[Aardvark154]

The decision will come down on Dec. 20 to minimize any fallout that may happen from the unhappy side for or against changes to the law. The government wants to present the decision and then close down quickly for the Christmas holidays hoping that the people that are unhappy with the decision will have cooled when the government resumes.

IF this was a government press release. But as already stated by others it is not.