From a few months ago: the stark differences between Regina and Saskatoon.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/2-cities-2-very-different-app...
I was surprised last time I went down there to see neon signs that weren't there before - in a place where technically brothels don't exist. So while I agree that these laws will drive people underground and into more danger, even that isn't entirely true (at least the first part).
If I was prostitute I wouldn't want to be compared to Tory officials either. I can't imagine worse insult. I don't think that was his intent.
If I was prostitute I wouldn't want to be compared to Tory officials either. I can't imagine worse insult. I don't think that was his intent.
Thanks, Brachina, for those articles which I wouldn't have seen.
Two different viewpoints, from Karl Nerenberg and Heather Mallick (long dossier)
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/karl-nerenberg/2014/06/peter-mackays-pro...
http://www.thestar.com/projects/prostitution.html a long dossier about 3 European countries and Canadian perspectives
I do wish Ms Mallick wouldn't talk about herself so much, though...
CSN communiqué from today's press conference: saluting measures targeting pimps and clients, against any repressive measures targeting people working in prostitution: http://www.csn.qc.ca/web/csn/communique/-/ap/comm2014-06-05?p_p_state=ma...
(comment by me: we know damned well the CONS won't provide needed social and employment services, they have done f-all for victimized Indigenous women...)
Your welcome.
Has anyone found the actual Bill published anywhere?
I think it makes sense for both the NDP and the Liberals to read the bill before giving a comprehensive response.
Brachina, neither party can prevent this law from being passed. Even if all opposition members vote against the law it will still pass because the Conservatives have a majority. They don't need anyone's permission, wait, they do. The Senate can refuse it, except that too is majority Conservative. Even so, the Senate is more independent than the House.
I'm wondering if the Cons made the bill especially harsh to make it difficult for the NDP and Liberals to support it. If they don't, the political attack ads will be about the NDP and the Libs supporting prostitution.
Until we actually get to read the bill it's difficult to focus on particular aspects of it but it certainly seems that the potential for arresting prostitutes is still very high which is definitely not part of the Nordic Model.
This article gives two opposing legal perspectives, I will be quoting only the one I agree with because the other is getting plenty of airtime:
But Janine Benedet, a University of British Columbia law professor and director of its Centre for Feminist Legal Studies, says MacKay has fundamentally changed the basis of any future legal battle. Whereas the old laws were largely designed to combat the public nuisance aspects of prostitution, his new one is framed in its preamble as being rooted in “grave concerns about the exploitation that is inherent in prostitution and the risks of violence posed to those who engage in it.”
“They are changing the legislative focus,” Benedet said. “For the very first time we have a legislative statement that one of the objectives here is to actually reduce the demand for prostitution, and we’ve never seen that before.”
And:
—Purchasing sexual services would be illegal anyplace. Penalties range up to five years in prison, along with escalating mandatory fines of $500 for the first offence and $1,000 for any subsequent offence.
—Profiting from the prostitution of others, including through businesses that sell the sexual services of others online or out of venues such as escort agencies, massage parlours, or strip clubs that also provide sexual services, would be illegal. Maximum penalty of 10 years in prison.
—Running ads on the sale of sexual services in print media or on the Internet would be illegal. Courts could seize materials containing the advertisements and require information to identify and locate the person who posted the ad.
—Communicating for the purpose of selling sex in public places where a child could reasonably be expected to be present would be illegal. The maximum penalty for this offence would be 6 months in prison.
The last is the most problematic as it could apply to prostitutes working in proximity to underage prostitutes. This hits street prostitutes, the most disadvantaged and abused victims of prostitution. +18 women in this population cannot police the other women on the street. Runaways are going to be greater danger because the other young women will fear being arrested if they are close by. That will make it easier for pimps to pick up the younger girls and isolate them even further.
In my view the means of stopping the bill lies with objecting to specific draconian clauses and targeting the Senate as technically they are independent. Even if Conservatives dominate the membership they cannot legally whip the vote.
The reason we don't have an abortion law is because it failed to pass the Senate. It was sent back to the HoC and they declined to try again. No other government since then has tried again.
The Senate could definitely be in the mood to rebel on this and it could even benefit the Conservatives politically to have it blocked at the Senate level.
1) It proves that Harper doesn't control the Senate if they reject his bill.
2) It proves that the Senate has the power to defeat the will of the people as represented by the HoC.
3) Harper still reaps the moral benefit of being against prostitution and trying to do something about it.
4) Harper gets to use this as an election issue to his base, the lone crusader against prostitution.
So, Harper might not be all that against the Senate rebelling on this.
Senators are older and richer therefore hold more traditional sexist views on prostitution. These are the men that favored nuisance laws that maintained their legal access to prostitutes. These are the men with double standards, who see good girls and bad girls, who believe that certain girls are predisposed to the profession and that they are good guys and everyone is just having fun.
The Senate is looking for a reason to justify it's existence and prove it's independence.
Legitimatization is popular with the public.
If given morally defensible reasons to vote againt the law Senators will be easy to convince because they are predisposed philosophically, want to justify their existence, prove their independence, and popularize themselves with the public.
I'd say if you are going to run a campaign against the new law I'd forget about the parties and aim for the senators. They are the only people in Canada with the power to stop this bill, unless you think you can get some Conservative MPs to vote against it.
I'd say if you are going to run a campaign against the new law I'd forget about the parties and aim for the senators. They are the only people in Canada with the power to stop this bill
Judges will also have the power to stop it. And my guess is that they will.
Has anyone found the actual Bill published anywhere?
Yeah, [url=http://ww2.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=fullcomment.nationalpost.co..., preceded by a decent op-ed piece by Jesse Kline: "The state re-enters the bedroom with new legislation on prostitution."
From Justin Ling writing in Xtra:
[url=http://dailyxtra.com/canada/news/new-sex-work-bill-considerably-stricter... sex work bill considerably stricter than Nordic model[/url]
The NDP is holding off on taking a formal position on the bill until they have more time to read the legislation, but they have not closed the door on supporting the Nordic model.
Yeah, no rush. Gotta check polls and Twitter. And make sure Libby keeps her mouth shut.
Not just "stricter" but counter to the spirit of Nordic model legislation. People in prostitution are still subject to criminal prosecution.
This was a doozy:
But the bill does not leave the selling of sex entirely decriminalized. C-36 makes illegal any sex worker who communicates with a client in a public place where anyone under 18 might be present. A “public place” can include the inside of a car.
That means two 17-year-old sex workers working a corner could both be committing a crime simply by being near each other. In that scenario, MacKay agreed, they could be arrested and fined.
MacKay was asked if that compromised the sex workers’ security.
“Not at all. We’re not making them do anything. We’re not forcing them to sell sex,” he said.
What planet does this piece of shit live on? The girls (or boys) are probably running away from a terrible home situation where they face violence, perhaps incest, and think they might as well get paid for it. In the actual situations like that of which I have first-hand knowledge, they are working together to be a little bit safer, and at least to have a friend somewhere in the world.
His party is the last to even pretend to provide such young people alternatives and a way out.
I'd say if you are going to run a campaign against the new law I'd forget about the parties and aim for the senators. They are the only people in Canada with the power to stop this billJudges will also have the power to stop it. And my guess is that they will.
No Judges can't stop the bill from being passed and becoming law. Judges can't step in at all unless someone mounts a court case challenging the law after it has been passed.
Changing the rationale for the law and making it illegal to buy sex impacts the Charter ruling which was based on prostitution being legal and the purpose of the laws being to contain the nuisance aspects. Any new Charter challenge has to attack the new rationale.
The bill doesn't seem to be public yet, but apparently there are specific allowances for hiring guards and receptionists etc. and for women to work together indoors and hire such staff. This was a major component of the court's rationale for striking down the old laws.
The claim that women are working on the street because of laws against hiring indoor staff is invalided under the new law.
Anything having to do with the prevention of the exposure of minors to prostitution will be difficult to overturn.
Mounting a challenge against the new laws will be a whole new ball game. There will be no rapid overturn based on the existing judgement.
The bill doesn't seem to be public yet, but apparently there are specific allowances for hiring guards and receptionists etc. and for women to work together indoors and hire such staff. This was a major component of the court's rationale for striking down the old laws.
I did provide you with [url=http://ww2.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=fullcomment.nationalpost.co... link to the bill above[/url], even though it may not be public yet.
I'd say if you are going to run a campaign against the new law I'd forget about the parties and aim for the senators. They are the only people in Canada with the power to stop this billJudges will also have the power to stop it. And my guess is that they will.
No Judges can't stop the bill from being passed and becoming law.
I didn't say that they could, although the government could refer the bill immediately to the supreme court to see if it will hold up.
I'd say if you are going to run a campaign against the new law I'd forget about the parties and aim for the senators. They are the only people in Canada with the power to stop this billJudges will also have the power to stop it. And my guess is that they will.
No Judges can't stop the bill from being passed and becoming law.
I didn't say that they could, although the government could refer the bill immediately to the supreme court to see if it will hold up.
I think the Cons have already consulted lawyers and it is very unlikely they will consult the SCC. If someone takes it to the courts then judges have the power to over turn all or parts of the bill if they choose to but that leaves the bill in place for years and it is very far-reaching and bound to have a much larger impact than anyone on either side thought possible. It goes well beyond anything currently described as the Nordic Model. So much so that the Canadian Model may become a new descriptor for prostitution law.
As everyone knows I am a supporter of the Nordic Model. I support it because I am concerned for the safety and well-being of women. It's going to take me some time to fully digest the implications of the new laws but there are alarming aspects to it that I do not support. The Senate is a realistic avenue to stopping the bill, or at least aspects of it, from ever becoming law.
I don't see the pay-off in minimizing the power of the new laws and buying the line that the entire bill will easily be overturned by judges after the fact.
... 'Senators are older and richer therefore hold more traditional sexist views on prostitution. These are the men that favored nuisance laws that maintained their legal access to prostitutes.'
When did our current Senate uphold nuisance laws 'that maintained their legal access to prostitutes'?
'These are the men with double standards, who see good girls and bad girls, who believe that certain girls are predisposed to the profession and that they are good guys and everyone is just having fun.'
These views are held by Senators (in your opinion) because they are old or because they are wealthy?
'Legitimatization is popular with the public.'
Legitimization has never been popular with the Canadian public, that's why Canada's own prostitutes rights movement has never won a single real victory.
If given morally defensible reasons to vote againt the law Senators will be easy to convince because they are predisposed philosophically, want to justify their existence, prove their independence, and popularize themselves with the public.
Nonsense.
When did our current Senate uphold nuisance laws 'that maintained their legal access to prostitutes'?
I think 1985 is the last time the Senate passed a prostitution bill so a lot of current senators didn't vote back then it is true. I still see the Senate as composed of mainly men who most likely think prostitution should be legal except when it's a nuisance. I'm not saying it's a fact, it's just my opinion.
These views are held by Senators (in your opinion) because they are old or because they are wealthy?
Yes I do believe men who are older or are wealthy or both are pre-disposed to sexist views concerning women and sexuality due to a sense of entitlement. Again, just my opinion.
Legitimization has never been popular with the Canadian public, that's why Canada's own prostitutes rights movement has never won a single real victory.
Everything I see and read tells me that the majority of the public thinks prostitution should be a regulated industry in red light districts. They read simplistic articles and jump on board. (true for both sides). The reason it hasn't helped pro-prostitution groups is that people don't feel strongly about it because most are not directly affected. In my opinion most people only think about it on an abstract theoretical level.
If given morally defensible reasons to vote againt the law Senators will be easy to convince because they are predisposed philosophically, want to justify their existence, prove their independence, and popularize themselves with the public.
Nonsense.
Okay then, no sense in trying. I just thought since the Senate refused to pass the law on abortion, and has sent other bills back to parliament for ajustment, it was worth a shot. Guess not. Okay, I give up.
The bill doesn't seem to be public yet, but apparently there are specific allowances for hiring guards and receptionists etc. and for women to work together indoors and hire such staff. This was a major component of the court's rationale for striking down the old laws.
I did provide you with [url=http://ww2.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=fullcomment.nationalpost.co... link to the bill above[/url], even though it may not be public yet.
Yes thanks, I am working my way through it now. Tough going on screen with the way it is written.
The NDP has announced that they want the bill to be examined by the Supreme Court before it is voted on.
The NDP is stalling for time, I'm not sure why they seem to find this a hard question. Although I do agree it should be refered to the supreme court so everyones time is not wasted.
The NDP is stalling for time, I'm not sure why they seem to find this a hard question. Although I do agree it should be refered to the supreme court so everyones time is not wasted.
I don't see it as stalling for time. This is going to get overturned, every legal expert has said so. Why waste tax payers money to argue this at the Supreme Court when this bill will probably be reversed. Better to know now, then five years down the road.
One thing I do agree with Lagatta on and that is that Peter McKay is a piece of shit, although I must say she is far more kind then me.
The NDP is stalling for time, I'm not sure why they seem to find this a hard question. Although I do agree it should be refered to the supreme court so everyones time is not wasted.
I don't see it as stalling for time. This is going to get overturned, every legal expert has said so. Why waste tax payers money to argue this at the Supreme Court when this bill will probably be reversed. Better to know now, then five years down the road.
Why does the NDP have to wait until the SCC expresses an opinion before they do? What if the SCC is fine with it?
http://m.thestar.com/#!/canada/quebec-national-assembly-adopts-right-to-...
Not directly related, but I thought I'd note this as Harper seems to have a fetish for losing at the Supreme Court.
My good friend Erin Seatter, who works at the Positive Women's Network here in Vancouver, has a great article out today on this awful proposed piece of legislation.
[url=http://pwn.bc.ca/2014/06/the-canadian-model/#.U5EPBygdHIV]The Canadian model: Ending exploitation or legislating moralism?[/url]
Like the failed Nordic model, this made-in-Canada approach criminalizes the clients of sex workers, while ostensibly trying to convince sex workers to stop commodifying their bodies, in a hopeless attempt to end the sex trade.But the Canadian model goes much further, blatantly disregarding the Supreme Court decision and studies showing the policing of purchasers puts the same pressures on sex workers, impeding them from screening clients, negotiating transactions, working in safe areas, and accessing police protections.
Their seems to be a growing consensus that the Supreme Court will likely find the new bill contravenes the constitution.
This line of attack against a Harper government bill seems very similar to the one used to derail the Conservatives doomed bill on Senate reform.
NDP joins call for Tories to refer prostitution bill to Supreme Court - Toronto Star
OTTAWA—The NDP is joining the calls for the government to send the newly tabled prostitution bill directly to the Supreme Court of Canada for an opinion on its constitutionality. NDP justice critic Françoise Boivin took up a challenge by lawyer Alan Young, ...
Peter MacKay Ducks Question On Referring Anti-Prostitution Bill To Top Court - Huffington Post and Canadian Press
Justice Minister Peter MacKay dodged questions Thursday from both the Liberal and NDP about whether he would send the new anti-prostitution bill immediately to the Supreme Court for a reference on its constitutionality. A top court ruling on whether the proposed legislation passes constitutional muster could bypass years of lower- and appeals-court rulings, if the bill is ... Canada's top court has rejected the Harper government's arguments five times in recent years.
terrible, terrible terrible been trying to read it off and on don't get any sense of rational logic this is not a good thing!
terrible, terrible terrible been trying to read it off and on don't get any sense of rational logic this is not a good thing!
terrible, terrible terrible been trying to read it off and on don't get any sense of rational logic this is not a good thing!
The NDP has announced that they want the bill to be examined by the Supreme Court before it is voted on.
Canadian Press reports Mckay will not submit the bill to the SCC
http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/politique/politique-canadienne/201406/...
I changed the formatting and order of clauses to simplify reading the rationale underpinning the law.
Whereas the Parliament of Canada
- has grave concerns about the exploitation that is inherent in prostitution and the risks of violence posed to those who engage in it;
-
- recognizes the social harm caused by the objectification of the human body and the commodification of sexual activity;
-
- wishes to encourage those who engage in in prostitution to report incidents of violence and to leave prostitution;
-
- is committed to protecting communities from the harms associated with prostitution;
-
Whereas it is important
- to protect human dignity and the equality of all Canadians by discouraging prostitution, which has a disproportionate impact on women and children;
-
- it is important to denounce and prohibit the purchase of sexual services because it creates a demand for prostitution;
-
- to continue to denounce and prohibit the procurement of persons for the purpose of prostitution and the development of economic interests in the exploitation of the prostitution of others as well as the commercialization and institutionalization of prostitution;
exerpt from SCC decison
[2] These appeals and the cross-appeal are not about whether prostitution should be legal or not. They are about whether the laws Parliament has enacted on how prostitution may be carried out pass constitutional muster. I conclude that they do not. I would therefore make a suspended declaration of invalidity, returning the question of how to deal with prostitution to Parliament.
Pasted from <http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13389/index.do>
The SCC decision rested on two foundational facts. Prostitution is legal and the laws had been written to prevent prostitution from being a public nuisance.
Purchasing sex is now 100% illegal and the purpose of the law is to prevent all prostitution because it is inherently harmful and dangerous.
That completely changes the equation.
I don't believe it will be at all easy to challenge these new laws.
Actually no its not 100% illegal, its prefecfly legal to sell sex out of say your apartment, you just can't advertize, and its illegal to buy sex, but selling is still legal technically, but its very difficult to do legally in practice. This makes it dangerous.
Actually no its not 100% illegal, its prefecfly legal to sell sex out of say your apartment, you just can't advertize, and its illegal to buy sex, but selling is still legal technically, but its very difficult to do legally in practice. This makes it dangerous.
Selling sex is not criminalized under any circumstances unless minors are in the vicinity or can reasonably be expected to be. I am not in favor of that clause and I hope that it can be removed before the law is passed or that the Senate stops it.
Selling sex is not criminalized which is not the same thing as legal. Both parties need not be criminalized for an act to be illegal. Consider minimum wage, the employee is not criminalized when the law is broken even if the employee consented and even if the employee wants to continue the arrangement.
My opinion is obviously in the minority but I don't think it's wrong. I think the MSM pundits decided to take this tact because they have been supporting legitimization all along and the two primary legal teams that have fought for it are claiming it sets up the same conditions therefore will be overturned.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/06/05/peter-mackay-prostitution-bill_n...
But Janine Benedet at the University of British Columbia's law faculty doesn't think the government will ask the Supreme Court for a reference because it's not known how the police will interpret and enforce the new bill if it passes.
It's not certain how the police or the courts will determine if a location might be frequented by children, especially late at night. Nor is it clear how the bill's prohibition against advertising for sexual acts will be defined, such as whether it will include the ads found in free weekly newspapers or online.
"You need a body of evidence about how the laws are being enforced and implemented," Benedet said in a phone interview from Vancouver. "You can't just challenge them tomorrow [because] the court can say, 'Well, how can we make any decision about the impact of these laws until we know something about them?"
Selling sex is not criminalized under any circumstances unless minors are in the vicinity or can reasonably be expected to be.
A state of affairs also known as "being outside".
Of course Charlie Smith is right about the NDP - gang of cowards, as we've already seen from the muzzling of Libby Davies. But the Liberals? Where do they stand?? It's inconceivable to me that the Liberals could support decriminalization:
[url=http://www.straight.com/news/660346/justin-trudeau-only-hope-sex-workers... Trudeau is the only hope for sex workers[/url]
If Trudeau doesn't publicly defend sex workers, there's not much hope that any other federalist party leader will.
The NDP under Thomas Mulcair has already proven itself too conservative to take a really brave stand.
Green Leader Elizabeth May has largely been a washout on this issue until her recent comments critizing Bill C-236.
And don't even get me started on Harper...
The only party that has spoken out clearly - in the past - in favour of decriminalization is the Bloc - but it's not clear whether they still maintain that position today.
If Trudeau doesn't publicly defend sex workers, there's not much hope that any other federalist party leader will.
The NDP under Thomas Mulcair has already proven itself too conservative to take a really brave stand.
Green Leader Elizabeth May has largely been a washout on this issue until her recent comments critizing Bill C-236.
And don't even get me started on Harper...
Trudeau has already stated that prostitution is violence against women. I interpret that as support for the Nordic model. I think the Liberals are going over the bill with a fine tooth comb. They will support most of it. The most problematic part is this:
"(e) create an offence that prohibits communicating — for the purpose of selling sexual services — in a public place, or in any place open to public view, that is or is next to a place where persons under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present; "
The johns are already fully criminalized so the police can focus on them in areas where there are schools etc. In fact street walkers don't want trouble from communities or police. They will happily confine themselves to downtown unofficial red light districts at night. I doubt we have ever had any problems with prostitutes hanging out in front of schools in the afternoon.
They can't be expected to police underage street walkers. I don't know if the general public will understand the problem or if they will just have a knee jerk reaction to the mention of minors.
The Conservatives have certainly managed to put the NDP and the Liberals on the hotseat.
I think the Bloc's position was mainly influenced by Serge Ménard, a criminalist. Mourani later provided some weight to the other position.
My present feeling:
1 The bill will not be submitted to the SCC as announced by McKay yesterday.
2 The bill will pass as is, however stupid it’s consequences: it will hit the most vulnerable sex workers, doing their business in the open air. But Harper wants to satisfy his conservative base. He told them this is the best he can do: keep prostitutes out of their sight and leave it to their local police to decide what that means. I see no way he would capitulate to the request of the rescue industry to have total decriminalization of street sex workers.
3 Trudeau will impose a vote against the bill on the reasonable ground that he thinks the law is not based on firm constitutional grounds.
4 The NDP will do the same.
5 Janice Benedict is probably right when she says it might take a few years before a court challenge can be initiated. Wishful thinking of course, coming from a radical prohibitionist, but I guess accurate.
6 The next five years will be difficult business wise for those most in need because of the fear of the clients.
7 Sex work will become more dangerous because of all the reasons provided by the health agencies all over the world. The philosophy of prohibitionists, by the way, is radically opposed to harm reduction.
8 The rescue industry will cash in 20M$. It’s funny how this is translated in the discourse as money going to sex workers. I just can’t see even 10% of the money going to sex workers. The money is for NGO staff dealing with no extra provincial social and health programs. McKay was so hypocrite in his press conference when he said money could go to housing. It’s nice to see him taking engagement in the name of provinces and municipalities.
9 And then everything will go back to the previous state some five years from now, the time necessary for clients to feel the risks are reasonable. Oh no! Wait! They will have been re-educated by information campaigns explaining the pricks they are if they continues to pay for sex. OK then. Prostitution will have stopped to exist. End of the story. Otherwise, I expect to SCC to render its next decision 15 years from now.
I'm so sorry for the sex workers. Now that it is licensed by the government, we may expect the rescue industry to hit them even more than they do now.
Mulcair and the NDP will oppose it, they were just hoping the Supreme Court would do the dirty work for them. I have no doubt this issue has been deeply devisive within the party, for which I blame those foolish enough to beleave the Nordic model would be accepted by the supreme court, but Mulcair is not a coward for not wanting the party to rip itself in half.
The only hope for this country, the only hope for the future, so if some files have to be with care so be it. Its frustrating, but I do believe and am cirtain the NDP will be vote agianst this bill.
As to Justin being the prostitutes only hope this is the guy who said prostitution was violence against women, so good luck on that.
Listening to Peter McKay he is saying over and over again that he is doing what the Supreme Court asked the government to do. To get women out of the sex trade industry.
That is NOT what the Bedford decision was about. It was about the safety of sex workers and how the law wasn't protecting them.
I think the Cons are taking a page from Rob Ford.
Like when Ford said he saved tax payers a billion dollars.
If you repeat something long enough publicily, people will believe it.
The party policy on sex work was pasted at convention. So what was in that policy is the policy od the NDP. And that policy was of decriminalization.
You guys believe whatever you want, to me its 100% clear that the NDPs position is decriminalization. You'll see.
Yeah, right, sure. You should try to pay more attention to what the NDP says and does - and less to your illusions about them. People (women) end up getting hurt when illusions aren't challenged.
it's too fkn funny, not, some people here blame the those against sex work for harming the sex workers, and putting them in danger. here all the time i thought it's the men who are violent and exploitive who endanger the women and girls.
how come no one wants to discuss this truth? how about edcucational programs for men and boys?
if a guy wants to be a bad "date" he is going to be a bad "date" whether or not prostitution is illegal or legal. if one sex worker says no way, he'll find another who won't.
pushing the bs it's the prohibitionists who are endangering prostitutes is actually bullying people for their own beliefs imv and it scape goats the men being violent in the first place.
No one is excusing those who punch, rob, or rape prostitutes (which btw is not the majority of clients). But prohibition does make it easier for the ones who are thugs, both by driving it underground, and by driving away good clients leaving prostitutes relying on those who hate women instead.
I do agree, that there needs to be antianger training in schools, but I wouldn't restrict them to men, my step mother has a temper that's scary, and my dad's bestfriend, a man who was friendly and gentle, an artist got stabbed in the back by his wife. Everyone should get this training.
I suggest ACT, Acceptance and commitment theapy/training, especially as its useful for more then just anger, but addiction, depression, and all sorts of painful issues.
No one is excusing those who punch, rob, or rape prostitutes (which btw is not the majority of clients). But prohibition does make it easier for the ones who are thugs, both by driving it underground, and by driving away good clients leaving prostitutes relying on those who hate women instead.
I find this line of argument very interesting. Do you think the clients who hate women would find fewer victims under decriminalization? I think they would find more victims not less. If there were more women for the abusers to choose from each woman would have a reduced chance of being "the one" but just as many women would be harmed, probably more.
P.S. Don't forget now, if you have daughters that go clubbing or date, warn them to check men out for 3 minutes rather than 1 before getting into a car to ensure their safety.
New Column from National Post John Ivison
A rump of social conservatives in the Conservative Party have made it known they are unhappy with the bill — and would have preferred outright prohibition, banning both the sale and purchase of sexual services. For a number of Conservatives, the bill’s ban on the purchase and advertising of sex does not go far enough.
But Mr. Harper and Mr. MacKay presented the bill as a compromise between the harder line of the prohibitionists and outright legalization. “It was done to bring people into the fold,” said one MP.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/06/06/john-ivison-harper-pitche...
From the SCC ruling at http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13389/index.do :
The impugned laws negatively impact security of the person rights of prostitutes and thus engage s. 7. The proper standard of causation is a flexible “sufficient causal connection” standard, as correctly adopted by the application judge. The prohibitions all heighten the risks the applicants face in prostitution — itself a legal activity. They do not merely impose conditions on how prostitutes operate. They go a critical step further, by imposingdangerous conditions on prostitution; they prevent people engaged in a risky — but legal — activity from taking steps to protect themselves from the risks. That causal connection is not negated by the actions of third‑party johns and pimps, or prostitutes’ so‑called choice to engage in prostitution. While some prostitutes may fit the description of persons who freely choose (or at one time chose) to engage in the risky economic activity of prostitution, many prostitutes have no meaningful choice but to do so. Moreover, it makes no difference that the conduct of pimps and johns is the immediate source of the harms suffered by prostitutes. The violence of a john does not diminish the role of the state in making a prostitute more vulnerable to that violence.
In this and in other findings the court emphasizes the current legality of prostitution. Prostitution is defined as the act of exchanging money for sex. It is not broken down by who is doing the selling and who is doing the buying. The act of exchanging money for sex is made illegal through criminalizing the purchase of sex. That the seller is not criminalized does not mean prostitution is legal for one half of the equation because the exchange of money for sex is still criminalized.
The court has recognized that many prostitutes have no meaningful choice, that prostitution is risky, and that pimps and johns are the source of the harm.
http://www.thestar.com/projects/prostitution.html a long dossier about 3 European countries and Canadian perspectives
I do wish Ms Mallick wouldn't talk about herself so much, though...
Finally read this. Wow. "Imagine a world in which people are having sex [i]in your condo complex[/i]! There could be men next to you on the elevator who are [i]about to have sex[/i]! Your children will pass sex workers in the street!"
Not sure what Mallick thinks is happening now, but I bet she considers herself to have an eye for "that sort of girl/guy". Wouldn't want to hurt her property values.
New Column from National Post John Ivison
A rump of social conservatives in the Conservative Party have made it known they are unhappy with the bill — and would have preferred outright prohibition, banning both the sale and purchase of sexual services. For a number of Conservatives, the bill’s ban on the purchase and advertising of sex does not go far enough.
But Mr. Harper and Mr. MacKay presented the bill as a compromise between the harder line of the prohibitionists and outright legalization. “It was done to bring people into the fold,” said one MP.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/06/06/john-ivison-harper-pitche...
I think it's fake grandstanding intended to portray the bill as a compromise. They know there will be/is resistence to the clause that criminalizes prostitutes.
The sadistic will be more likely to be caught and or avioded. And cops won't be able to blackmail prostitutes for free sex any more.
Btw its not just common elements between the old law and the new law that makes it destined for the dust bin of history, its whole new elements such as the term sexual services, amoung others. Its a horrible written bill that will lead to legalization.
"Mr. Harper told the Tory caucus the bill was crafted to survive a constitutional challenge. In an effort to rally support, he said that if the courts throw the new bill out, the government will have no option but to introduce full legalization of prostitution" from the Ivison article cover Tory reactions.
Ironically he put forward a bill pretty much certain to be thrown out.
