Supreme Court to hear prostitution law appeal; brothel ban stays for now

[Twister]

The Supreme Court of Canada is willing to take a look at the country’s main laws controlling prostitution.

The top court said today it will hear a government appeal of a ruling striking down the ban on brothels.

Ontario’s top court had ruled the ban on bawdy houses increased the dangers prostitutes face because it forces them to work outside.

The Ontario court also upheld a ban on soliciting and reworded the law against living on the avails of prostitution.

The Supreme Court will also hear a cross-appeal by sex-trade workers on the soliciting ban.

The top court says a stay on legalizing brothels will remain in place until it decides the case.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...titution-law-appeal-brothel-ban-stays-for-now

 

[dreamblade]

Still good news for the pro-decrim side.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Saw that on CP24 at the bank. Interesting & good news.

 

[rld]

Still good news for the pro-decrim side.

Actually it is not good news for the pro-decrim side.

If the Supremes had refused to hear it, the Ont C of A decision would have stood, which I think would have made them quite happy. There is now a risk that the SCC could overturn the previously positive decision. You should know that the lawyers who represent the ladies argued that leave should not be given to hear the case.

I also worry about how a Harper government will respond to a SCC decision against them. They could legislate more aggressively. But that is another day.

 

[dreamblade]

Actually it is not good news for the pro-decrim side.

If the Supremes had refused to hear it, the Ont C of A decision would have stood, which I think would have made them quite happy. There is now a risk that the SCC could overturn the previously positive decision. You should know that the lawyers who represent the ladies argued that leave should not be given to hear the case.

I also worry about how a Harper government will respond to a SCC decision against them. They could legislate more aggressively. But that is another day.

It's good news because it has essentially neutered the 210 and 212 provisions in ON. With that and willing to hear what both sides have to say on 210, 212(j), and 213, no one will be able to really want to prosecute until the SCC sets up a hearing.

Now Harper's a wily bastard, but there's a time limit on this. BC is in the initial stages of the same challenge SPOC did here, and the decision (the same, I expect) will be rendered in 2014 or so. Then you have Quebec, Alberta, NB following suit, and you have Harper fighting the will of most of the country, in an arena he has very little sway.

 

[rld]

It's good news because it has essentially neutered the 210 and 212 provisions in ON. With that and willing to hear what both sides have to say on 210, 212(j), and 213, no one will be able to really want to prosecute until the SCC sets up a hearing.

Now Harper's a wily bastard, but there's a time limit on this. BC is in the initial stages of the same challenge SPOC did here, and the decision (the same, I expect) will be rendered in 2014 or so. Then you have Quebec, Alberta, NB following suit, and you have Harper fighting the will of most of the country, in an arena he has very little sway.

We view it differently.

The street prostitution rulings are a loser seven ways to Sunday. Very unpopular with the public and if the CCC fails municipalities will do the same thing via by-laws.

If the Ont C of A decision would have survived it effectively would have become the law of the land.

And the fact that there are multiple court challenges does not mean that the voting populace wants or approves of street prostitution. But we will see.

But, while you may like this decision, you should know that the ladies in question argued against leave being granted. So their lawyers preferred the reverse of what you suggest is good.

 

[GPIDEAL]

We view it differently.

The street prostitution rulings are a loser seven ways to Sunday. Very unpopular with the public and if the CCC fails municipalities will do the same thing via by-laws.

If the Ont C of A decision would have survived it effectively would have become the law of the land.

And the fact that there are multiple court challenges does not mean that the voting populace wants or approves of street prostitution. But we will see.

But, while you may like this decision, you should know that the ladies in question argued against leave being granted. So their lawyers preferred the reverse of what you suggest is good.

After you explained, and me re-reading it, this appeal is by the Feds. You're right.

 

[dreamblade]

The street prostitution ruling is, indeed, a huge loss. It fails to protect the most disenfranchised of sex-workers. But this is the clincher. Unless the SCC decides to reverse the '94 decision, the outcome of this hearing should look pretty much the same as what happened with Himel's original verdict. True, it's a win all-lose all gambit, but I think it will be worth it in the end.

 

[GPIDEAL]

The street prostitution ruling is, indeed, a huge loss. It fails to protect the most disenfranchised of sex-workers. But this is the clincher. Unless the SCC decides to reverse the '94 decision, the outcome of this hearing should look pretty much the same as what happened with Himel's original verdict. True, it's a win all-lose all gambit, but I think it will be worth it in the end.

Sorry, can you elaborate why?

 

[dreamblade]

Sorry, can you elaborate why?

Because the Communication provision especially affects street-workers. The ban was upheld, so street-workers still cannot establish if the potential client is a threat or not through talking to him first.

 

[rld]

Because the Communication provision especially affects street-workers. The ban was upheld, so street-workers still cannot establish if the potential client is a threat or not through talking to him first.

I can tell you it doesn't even matter if the Supremes overturn the street walking section. There is no doubt municipalities would legislate it out of existence so fast it would make your head spin.

The best case scenario is that the Supremes uphold the Ont CA decision. If they strike out the street walking section, that gives the government a ton of political fuel to draft new legislation that could be worse than the current law.

 

[Ceiling Cat]

Saw that on CP24 at the bank. Interesting & good news.

http://soundbible.com/621-Cheering.html

I was at the bank too, there was a spontaneous cheer from the line up to the tellers, There must have been a few SPs in the line. A few tellers cheered as well, I think they are part timers.

 

[rld]

http://soundbible.com/621-Cheering.html

I was at the bank too, there was a spontaneous cheer from the line up to the tellers, There must have been a few SPs in the line. A few tellers cheered as well, I think they are part timers.

Somehow I doubt this story. And if so the people who cheered it likely don't understand it, or they are against prostitution.

 

[TeasePlease]

rld brings up some very good points.

Not everyone is happy about this case. Most established agencies, MPs and clubs would much rather keep the status quo; no one wants to invite more regulation. Things are working quite well now...


Some might say that the Bedford decision serves only a narrow and disenfranchised segment of the industry. While their issues as valid, they are also rocking the boat.


Im not sure where I stand. I can understand the appeal of the status quo. But then again, for my own business, I would much rather have certainty instead of relying of subjective enforcement policies of mandarins that put my investment at risk every day.

 

[fuji]

The conservative government has been looking for social policy issues to act on to show its far right base that voting conservative produces results.

They toyed with legislating abortion but backed off under protest from women.

If the SCC repeals prostitution they will impose a new law, perhaps criminalizing the customers only, and women will approve.

Watch what your ask for. My opinion, we ought to have let sleeping dogs lie.

 

[TeasePlease]

Couching this litigation in the context of women's safety and protection makes it palatable (and very difficult to challenge). But, when you cut to the chase, this is about allowing sexworkers the right to work indoors....in their homes? In residential areas? Of course not. Municipalities have and will exercise their right to regulate commerce, zoning, public health, etc.

I'm not sure that the civil rights lawyers have thought this one out.

Someone needs to step back and look at the big picture.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Because the Communication provision especially affects street-workers. The ban was upheld, so street-workers still cannot establish if the potential client is a threat or not through talking to him first.

Thanks Dreamblade. I met you at a party (or 2). You're a good guy (scholar and gent too).

 

[GPIDEAL]

http://soundbible.com/621-Cheering.html

I was at the bank too, there was a spontaneous cheer from the line up to the tellers, There must have been a few SPs in the line. A few tellers cheered as well, I think they are part timers.

Not quite, lol. I just raised an eyebrow and said interesting (they were interviewing Alan Young and that Dominatrix).

 

[GPIDEAL]

The conservative government has been looking for social policy issues to act on to show its far right base that voting conservative produces results.

They toyed with legislating abortion but backed off under protest from women.

If the SCC repeals prostitution they will impose a new law, perhaps criminalizing the customers only, and women will approve.

Watch what your ask for. My opinion, we ought to have let sleeping dogs lie.

Geez Fuji, you are such a Liberal. You really think that the average conservative voted the Conservative Party for social reform? I think it has more to do with wasteful government spending, or management of the economy, etc., than anything else. Sure there are extreme conservative elements, including perhaps what makes up the government, but I doubt that mainstream conservatives are so 'square'.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Couching this litigation in the context of women's safety and protection makes it palatable (and very difficult to challenge). But, when you cut to the chase, this is about allowing sexworkers the right to work indoors....in their homes? In residential areas? Of course not. Municipalities have and will exercise their right to regulate commerce, zoning, public health, etc.

I'm not sure that the civil rights lawyers have thought this one out.

Someone needs to step back and look at the big picture.

Okay but there are dentists, chiropractors, bookkeepers and even accountants who may work out their home offices. Are they infringing on current residential zoning by-laws? (Not too my knowledge, and I see these establishments in the thick of residential neighbourhoods). Can any discriminatory zoning by-laws against 'home SPs' be challenged too then?