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

[afterhours]

That's right... don't address the point or question... just skate around it!

Perry

Your state bar association should raise the standard of admission a little higher.

 

[MattRoxx]

The Big bad scary Stephen Harper with his much hyped 'Hidden Agenda' ......after seven years....... Has yet to materialize.

And even after this rework of a constitutional botch job by the Liberals years ago....Harper is gonna disappoint those hoping for a 'hidden agenda'

You never get tired of being wrong in your support for the Harper government but back in 2012:

CONSERVATIVES USE SEX TRADE INDUSTRY TO LEGISLATE MORALITY IN CANADA
In Calgary today, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney announced new rules that effectively bar the sex trade industry from hiring foreign workers. We’re told that the measures seek to stop the abuse and exploitation of foreign sex workers “who come to Canada to work and wind up being exploited.”

Nonsense.

First, the Conservatives are using public policy to legislate morality in Canada. They’re playing to their social conservative base.
...
The sex trade industry is alive and well. Will continue to thrive. It remains legal in Canada. But now Canadian citizens and residents will take the place of the barred foreign” workers as strippers and exotic dancers. And the abuse that goes with it.

And oh, because the industry is alive and well and there’s a demand for exotic dancers, the “foreigners” will use illegal means to get into Canada. Including paying fortunes to be smuggled in. And then the feds will catch up with them and throw them into jail for entering the country illegal… Never mind, the whole thing just makes me sick.

And that was just the beginning.

 

[GPIDEAL]

I don't think that the cons will have any problem with "uncomfortable" legislation. They aren't going to think about the way you are. The minister is going to call in his legal staff and tell them to go draft the toughest legislation that has a shot at passing the Supreme Court. Then when they come back with a proposal, just to make their political point about the unacceptability of activist judges, the minister will send the legal team back to make it even tougher, to force a confrontation with the SCC.

You seem to think that the SCC is going to punish the government and that they are little children to be punished for behaving badly by big powerful judges. You are totally missing that it is on the conservative agenda to reform the courts, and any wedge issue that they can use to force a confrontation with the courts in order to get the conservative voting public on their side, they will pursue. It will help them win elections and achieve majorities to do that. So they are not going to be afraid of putting the courts into a difficult situation. They are going to relish it.

I find that most people who bring a strictly legal position carefully analyze all the trees and totally miss the forest.

I hope Oagre is right and you're wrong, but I'm not confidant at this point that johns won't be targeted. Let's hope that it's as difficult as McKay says with respect to any writing of new legislation, and focus solely on real criminals - abusive pimps and human traffickers.

 

[Perry Mason]

Your state bar association should raise the standard of admission a little higher.

They will never be low enough to admit you!

But, in any event, "Don’t argue with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. "

Good bye!

Perry

 

[shakenbake]

I don't think its a victory they are saying its unconstitutional but parliament should rewrite the law from what I read. I don't think the conservatives are going to make it more legal than it is today or am I missing something?

That is correct. We are still not out of the woods, as safe and as sound as we would want to be.

 

[afterhours]

They will never be low enough to admit you!

But, in any event, "Don’t argue with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. "

Good bye!

Perry

let's agree on the following: if consumption of narcotics is an offence known to law in Canada or Spain, then I am an idiot, and if not, then you are an idiot and a condescending asshole

 

[canada-man]

 

[GPIDEAL]

Some legitimate reasons for seeing a sex worker (besides general horniness):

- your spouse cannot have sex due to health issues,
- your spouse will not have sex due to lack of interest,
- you are handicapped and your prospects for sex are lowered,
- you are really unattractive and and your prospects for sex are lowered.

In all these cases a person can get to fulfill a basic human need that is otherwise denied them.

Good reasons for a possible, future Notice of Constitutional Question.

 

[GPIDEAL]

You will never pass your Bar Admissions, friend.

Or the common sense exams, either... please tell me how you can smoke it without possessing it.

Or are you talking about possession in a holographic or virtual world?

Perry

I was just going to say that maybe it's not possession if seen smoking it in a video, ha ha.

 

[MrBiggs]

I am a lawyer. The new law would need to go through the same 5 year court process that this case went through. Plus a john would need to be the one who fights it. I doubt many would step up.

It wouldn't take many, it would take one. And I am sure the publicity would be more than enough to convince one person to stand up, especially a libertarian. I even suspect it would be someone who wasn't a hobby participant.

 

[MrBiggs]

That is correct. We are still not out of the woods, as safe and as sound as we would want to be.

Agree, the court was straightforward. "Make it illegal, or remove the barriers against the charter. You can't have it both ways"

I don't think there is a hair splitting option that would fly, although they could test the court and just go through another 5 yr cycle. Time will tell.

But I do think we now have what will amount to a grace period, as prosecution of a law deemed unconstitutional is awfully hard in any jurisdiction.

 

[GPIDEAL]

let's agree on the following: if consumption of narcotics is an offence known to law in Canada or Spain, then I am an idiot, and if not, then you are an idiot and a condescending asshole

I'm not a lawyer, but isn't consumption irrelevant?

I mean, before you can consume it, you must first possess it.

So it begs the question: Is there a maximum amount one can have for personal consumption purposes before you can get charged for possession?

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

It's illegal to possess crack but legal to smoke it

Just for fun you should try this halfbaked theory of yours out standing next to a cop.

Let us know how it works out for you

 

[Perry Mason]

Just for fun you should try this halfbaked theory of yours out standing next to a cop.

Let us know how it works out for you

:biggrin1:

Perry

 

[TeasePlease]

Parliament never passed a law to say lawyering is legal, either! Are you saying it is not legal, just not illegal?

But your premise is mistaken. The basis of our system is that if Parliament does not pass a law to say some product or service is illegal, then it is legal... especially if it is a product or service with a long history.

Perry

Beg to differ, my friend! Not parliament, but within provincial jurisdiction. The solicitors act of Ontario.

Likewise, other activities are explicitly permitted or governed by legislation, like driving, owning real property, fishing, etc. you can do this if you comply with these laws.....

clearly, there is a difference between legal, nothing and illegal.

Unless it is protected in the charter, it is not an enshrined right. They can always take it away.

 

[SkyRider]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Australia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Germany

 

[Aardvark154]

please tell me how you can smoke it without possessing it.

I'm put in mind of one of my favorite alcohol charges (in another jurisdiction [principally for minors]) "Possession by Consumption."

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

So which one of these scenarios is most likely:

1. Harper completely illegalizes prostitution and adopts the Swedish model.
2. Harper legalizes brothels but keeps pimping, trafficking and street prostitution illegal.
3. Harper doesnt challenge the SCC's ruling, and leaves things as is.

I personally think #2 is most likely, followed closely by #1 and then #3 as least likely. In that order

 

[asterwald]

I hope number 3,

 

[Aardvark154]

I hope number 3,

Number 2. As mentioned on the other thread: Yes, there are feminists and morality types who object to prostitution period, but to get the ordinary person madder than Hell and leaning on their MP have a neighborhood taken over by Street Walkers and Johns. Legislation will have to be enacted to prevent that, and if both outcall and incall are legal there is absolutely no reason for Street Walking.