How will parties approach the legality of sex work after the Supreme Court decision?

LOL nice SJ I liked it

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/why-the-prostitution-bill-will-increase-violence-against-sex-workers/article19704999/

Why the prostitution bill will increase violence against sex workers

Jane Doe is an author, lecturer and feminist activist.

Among other things, I am the woman in the civil case Jane Doe v the Toronto Police Force. In 1998, after an 11-year court battle, I successfully sued them for negligence and gender discrimination in their investigation of my rape, and of sexual assault generally.

When Bedford v Canada entered the legal system I convened the Feminist Coalition to ensure that all feminist voices were part of the legal and social dialogue on sex work. Our membership is national and consists of 23 sexual assault/rape crisis centres, women's shelters and other anti-violence organizations. Our affidavit and leave to intervene inBedford at the Supreme Court are public documents which contain a full list of our membership.

It is our opinion, as reflected in those documents, that former and proposed prostitution legislation does not work in women’s equality interests and promotes –even causes – violence against sex workers. We are concerned that Bill C-36 does not reflect the policies and opinions of the majority of front line anti-violence agencies. Instead, Justice Minister Peter MacKay relies solely on opinions of the umbrella group members of the abolitionist Women’s Coalition, which purports to represent all of us.

Bill C-36 supports the spurious concept that prostitution causes sexual assault and other violence against women. Sexual Assault is about power and dominance and is not caused by sex work. Certainly mine was not. Nor is there any qualified thought, research or lived experience to say otherwise. Most grievously, the bill ignores the systemic nature of violence against all women. Feminist battles against systemic discrimination resulted in the right to equal wages, fair labour practices, and protection from gendered violence against all women. Except, according to the bill, for women who are sex workers.

mark_alfred wrote:

Here's Senator Mobina Jaffer's thoughts on Bill C-36:  http://mobinajaffer.ca/senate-chamber/senate-speeches/october-21-2014-se...

A very interesting read.

Pretty much repeats all the same old arguments. For example, it is not a revelation that some women choose sex work. That he didn't know it until recently means he must have been living under a rock for years, decades even. When was "The Happy Hooker" published?

What I find more interesting is this:

"I have always believed that the House of Commons votes on bills with consideration of the rights of the majority and that the Senate was created to protect the rights of minorities. I believe that our role is to protect the most marginalized and the rights of minorities."

Wikipedia says this:

"Canada's first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, described it as a body of "sober second thought" that would curb the "democratic excesses" of the elected House of Commons and provide regional representation.[24] It was not meant to be more than a revising body or a brake on the House of Commons. Therefore, it was deliberately made an appointed house, since an elected Senate might prove too popular and too powerful, and be able to block the will of the House of Commons."

Second question, could pot dealers be typlified as a marginalized group or a minority?

Ms Jaffer's statement is pretty long, so here's a few paragraphs from it that convey her main points (IE, a Reader's Digest version):

Quote:

Bill C-36 is rooted in the belief that all sex workers are victims. Justice Minister Peter MacKay stated that the bill “treats sellers as victims of sexual exploitation, victims who need assistance in leaving prostitution.” This is the foundation of Bill C-36. Its value rests in treating this assumption as fact, yet this is inconsistent with what we heard over the past few months at the House Justice Committee hearings, at the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee pre-study and in the respective discussions that followed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, our highest court, ruled in their favour. The court found that those who actively choose to pursue sex work are also entitled to the same Charter protections as the rest of our citizens. Thus, the existing laws that violated these rights will cease to be in effect this December. By ruling that these laws violate the rights of these active sex workers, the Supreme Court implicitly acknowledges that there are people in this industry by their own intention; but the foundation of Bill C-36 rejects this claim.

To be clear, allow me to restate my point: this is not a bill about sex trafficking; this is a bill about sex work — consensual sex work between consensual adults, not forced-sex labour.

 We all know that sex work exists. We all know that after Bill C-36, sex work will exist. Sex work is not going to disappear. Therefore, we cannot ignore the voices of Valerie Scott, Terri Jean Bedford, Maxime Durocher and other sex workers that appeared before us at the Senate pre-study that stated very clearly that they do not identify themselves as victims. We cannot ignore the voices of the other Canadians who have chosen sex work as their profession. The reality is that consensual sex work exists. As a result, we have a duty to protect their safety, to make sure that their constitutional rights are upheld.

This bill is going to have a profound effect on the lives of these Canadians, and their safety matters to us. Every citizen has a right to security of life. If we pass Bill C-36 as it currently exists, we will be threatening this security for consensual sex workers in Canada.

Ms Jaffer is a Liberal (aligned) Senator, so perhaps her statement reflects their approach to this bill.

 I watched American Courtesan on Netflix, very enlightening.