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

[peter4025]

I would say # 2. Just think how much money in taxes he will be able to collect.

 

[afterhours]

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

it has worked for Rob Ford, hasn't it?
PS - it's not my theory, it's the state of the law in Canada

 

[HaywoodJabloemy]

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/12/20/supreme-court-deserves-praise-for-hooker-ruling

As the Supreme Court advised, Parliament is not prevented “from imposing limits on where and how prostitution may be conducted, as long as it does so in a way that does not infringe the constitutional rights of prostitutes.”

How does a Conservative government deal with such a quandary? It could decide to ban the sale of sex altogether — forcing this inevitable profession back into the shadows.

While the Swedish law will be a distinct possibility considered by the Harper government, I'm not sure they will be as completely unified and supportive of it as some seem to think. I heard Joy Smith on radio again today advocating it and sounding just as silly as she did last week talking about how 14-year-boys using the internet were accidentally seeing porn. It is a position largely identified with that particular radical element of feminists who are disliked by some of the older moralist conservative types. And there may be others who would question its usefulness, practicality, fairness, etc., just like anyone else would question such a silly law that is more about making a questionable ideological statement ("let's blame the men") than anything real.
The response from MacKay was understandably vague, but it certainly gave no specific mention of the Swedish law. He did mention "a number of other Criminal Code provisions" that remain, which gives me some hope that they may just try to keep up their "tough on crime" appearances by focusing on those, while not necessarily attempting to completely outlaw the entire sex business.

I was surprised by the unanimous decision, and that it struck down all three laws. I'm also surprised at the generally positive public reaction. People seem to be gradually understanding the situation more than ever now that some sex workers' voices are being heard, and the prohibitionist types trying to revive the Victorian era white slavery paranoia are sounding increasingly nonsensical and desperate.

... there is absolutely no reason for Street Walking.

There's no reason for a specific criminal law against it. (And is there really that much of it now anyway?). At most, I would put whatever nuisance it allegedly causes on about the same level as someone setting up their hot dog cart in an area not authorized for it. There are other laws about things like public indecency, trespassing, etc., that address any of the alleged problems anyone would complain about.

 

[afterhours]

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

it's actually a very neat illustration of a simple proposition that consumption does not automatically mean possession, but the old fool wouldn't understand

 

[fuji]

Joy does not agree with you guys, and unlike you lot, Joy is actually a conservative MP.

Unfortunately.

 

[locohobbiest17]

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

Brothels would be awesome. Would love to see German FKK style clubs over here.

 

[blackrock13]

Brothels would be awesome. Would love to see German FKK style clubs over here.

and you will see NIMBY like you've never seen to before. Keep it low profile and keep it safe.

 

[nottyboi]

Never gonna happen. I bet the new laws will be even worse for the sex trade. Something along the lines of Sweden where buying sex is made illegal. We have a conservative govt fer gawd sakes. In 1 year prostitution will be illegal in Canada. Enjoy it while it lasts.

 

[blackrock13]

I was surprised at the year long grace period.

 

[MattRoxx]

Never gonna happen. I bet the new laws will be even worse for the sex trade. Something along the lines of Sweden where buying sex is made illegal. We have a conservative govt fer gawd sakes. In 1 year prostitution will be illegal in Canada. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Yes. The Harper gov't has no problem putting ideology ahead of practicality or even reasonable common sense. Example:
1. Shuts down the Health Council of Canada, claiiming it's being done to save $6 million a year.

The federal Conservative government will stop funding the council created to ensure common standards for health-care across provinces and territories – a move that critics say will fragment the national system of medicare.

The Health Council of Canada was established in 2004 at the recommendation of former Saskatchewan premier Roy Romanow in his sweeping report on the sustainability of the Canadian health-care system. One of its jobs was to monitor the nine-year-old accord governing health transfers from Ottawa to the provinces and territories. Because that accord expires next year, the Harper government has told the council its work will no be longer required.

Largely its mandate was related to reporting around the existing health accord,” said Steve Outhouse, a spokesman for federal Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq. “It is a time of fiscal restraint, so, with the current health accord coming up for expiry, it’s a natural time to wind down the organization, or wind down federal funding for it.”

By cutting off the council’s funding, the government will save about $6-million annually. The council’s chief executive officer, John Abbott, said there is enough money to keep operating until the end of March next year.

Mr. Romanow said he is sad but not surprised to learn about the council’s dismantlement, which he labelled a “retrograde” measure. The council is an agent of interprovincial and intergovernmental collaboration and discussion, he said, “and it is absolutely necessary if we are to move forward as a nation with roughly the same kinds of expectations and reformed outcomes of health care that we so desperately needed then and really need now. So that is a really big blow to me.”

Okay so maybe some agree that less gov't spending is a good thing, even on health care. But then...

2.

Health Canada announces new anti-drug program for youth
The federal government has followed through on its vow to expand Health Canada’s anti-drug abuse strategy, announcing funding today in British Columbia for a new Health Promotion and Drug Prevention Strategy for Canada’s youth.

Over the next five years, Health Canada will be giving the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse (CCSA) $11.5 million to lead a new program designed to reduce drug use among Canadians aged 10 to 24.

What is this?! What next, spend money to tell kids not to play in traffic?!
This is most certainly a gov't that will spend and do whatever it takes to make prostitution illegal, saying the laws are designed to prevent the exploitation of the young.

 

[MattRoxx]

We're fucked...and not in a good way.

Joy does not agree with you guys, and unlike you lot, Joy is actually a conservative MP.

Unfortunately.

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'

The agenda is not hidden at all.

Canada Must Target Buyers of Sex

That includes you.

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the Criminal Code offences around prostitution are unconstitutional. This ruling leaves police without important legal tools to tackle sex trafficking and organized crime and does not reflect a 1990 Supreme Court of Canada decision which stated that the elimination of prostitution through law was a valid goal.

Despite this ruling, the debate around prostitution is hardly settled. There are those who wish to legalize and normalize the industry, those who wish to criminalize all aspects of the industry, and finally those, like myself, who recognize prostitution as an industry that is inherently harmful to women and girls and therefore must be eliminated.

I am convinced that the most effective route to tackling prostitution and sex trafficking is to address the demand for commercial sex by targeting the buyers of sex.
...
Prostitution must be eliminated because it dehumanizes and degrades humans and reduces them to a commodity to be bought and sold. Legalizing prostitution is a direct attack on the fundamental rights and freedoms of women, girls and vulnerable people. In the same regard, continuing to criminalize the women and vulnerable populations being prostituted creates barriers that prevent them from escaping prostitution and entrenches inequality.

Let's be clear: those who advocate either approach ignore mounting empirical evidence and will find themselves on the wrong side of history and women's equality.

As a nation, we must ensure pimps remain severely sanctioned and prostituted women and girls are not criminalized and instead given meaningful escape routes out of sex work. Most importantly, Canada must focus on the real root of prostitution by targeting the buyers of sex.

So far I have not read of any Harper MPs who contradict or dispute Smith's point of view.
And I fully expect her drumbeat of "targeting the buyers of sex" will be picked up and carried into the legislation.

 

[TeasePlease]

I was surprised at the year long grace period.

But not at the court striking all three sections?

So you were expecting a free for all?

there was no scenario in which that could have possibly happened. Not even the superior court allowed that.

 

[MattRoxx]

/\ There is no reason for you to assume that was the only element of the ruling that surprised him.

"One complete orbit of our planet around the sun" does seem arbitrary, longer than necessary, and set with little regard for the sex workers, customers, or the legislative calendar.

 

[TeasePlease]

/\ There is no reason for you to assume that was the only element of the ruling that surprised him.

"One complete orbit of our planet around the sun" does seem arbitrary, longer than necessary, and set with little regard for the sex workers, customers, or the legislative calendar.

you mean, besides the fact that it was the only element that he elected to mention?

 

[afterhours]

I was surprised at the year long grace period.

The cons will need some time to tuck the new legislation into some new omnibus bill. I wonder whether the victim fine surcharge will apply and what will be the mandatory minimum.

 

[HaywoodJabloemy]

Other Conservatives may be unwilling to publicly disagree with Joy Smith and her non-existent "mounting empirical evidence" (like this, I suppose?),
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/oct/20/government-trafficking-enquiry-fails

but I also have yet to hear many of them express great unreserved enthusiasm for her premise, including in MacKay's response yesterday. There hasn't really been anything (before yesterday) stopping them from pro-actively attempting to change the existing laws or introduce new ones like what Joy Smith wants, yet they haven't even tried, and done nothing except stall for time by dragging out the court battle to protect the status quo, long after they knew they would probably lose. Remember that the official position expressed by Conservatives after the conclusion of the subcommittee on solicitation laws a few years ago involved criminalizing sex workers who "freely seek to benefit from the business of prostitution." That's certainly not in sympathy with Joy Smith's 'they're all victims' attitude. But I will concede that after yesterday's decision it may be possible that more Conservatives will back her.

And as others have mentioned, I would also wonder about the attitude police and courts would have about such a ridiculously impractical symbolic law (when they barely enforce the existing ones), even if they are reluctant about publicly expressing their opinions.

 

[Aardvark154]

There's no reason for a specific criminal law against it. [Street Walking] (And is there really that much of it now anyway?). At most, I would put whatever nuisance it allegedly causes on about the same level as someone setting up their hot dog cart in an area not authorized for it. There are other laws about things like public indecency, trespassing, etc., that address any of the alleged problems anyone would complain about.

I believe that attempting to use § 175 (1)(a)(iii) and § 175 (1)(c) for the above purpose is asking for acquittals with arguments as to I wasn't impeding or obstructing anyone. As to molesting other persons, but I was merely asking an honest question as to what rates she charged, how was I to know she was an Insurance worker?

Much better to have a well drafted law specifically addressing street walking and johns.

 

[Aardvark154]

.

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

it's actually a very neat illustration of a simple proposition that consumption does not automatically mean possession, but the old fool wouldn't understand

Actually it means exactly the opposite - That having consumed you ipso facto have possessed.

 

[canada-man]

the fallout continues


Supreme Court prostitution ruling forces issue on Harper

Call it the world's oldest legislative headache.

A Conservative government that hoped to restore its fortunes in 2014 by talking about pipelines, international trade and victims of crime now will have to deal with the world's oldest profession.

The Supreme Court of Canada effectively gutted Canada's prostitution laws by finding this week that legislation against street soliciting, living on the avails and keeping a brothel was unconstitutional.

The court gave Parliament one year to come up with a new legislative scheme before the old laws are unenforceable.

While sex workers cheered at the Supreme Court in the hopes the unanimous court judgment ultimately leads to the decriminalization of prostitution, there seems little prospect of that under a government led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

"We view prostitution as bad for society and we view its effects as particularly harmful for our communities and women, and particularly for vulnerable women, and we will continue to oppose prostitution in Canada," Harper said in March 2012 after the Ontario Court of Appeal set in motion Friday's decision by striking down parts of the federal law.

The prime minister has steered clear of social conservative lightning rods during his eight years in power, allowing a free parliamentary vote that affirmed same-sex marriage in 2006 and firmly opposing any re-opening of the abortion debate, despite repeated efforts from within his own Conservative caucus.

It's worth noting that for same-sex marriage and abortion, the courts — not politicians — led the way to the current status quo in Canada.

However allowing federal prostitution laws simply to lapse does not appear to be an option.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sup...ling-forces-issue-on-harper-1.2472807?cmp=rss

 

[fuji]

Poking the bear seems to have been a stupid idea.