A possible comparator is gaming, which Parliament technically prohibits under the Criminal Code but then delegates to provinces (some of which in turn delegate to others) the ability to run all sorts of enterprises.
Not my favourite use of the division of powers, but one that the Supreme Court has upheld.
ETA: I am of course oversimplifying, but that's the general idea.
Not a chance. He will make it a provincial/city thing and save himself the hassle
Why do you think that? The judge already told him he can make prostitution illegal which changes everything. The entire case hinged on the fact that prostitution itself is legal.
Because its hard, legally speaking, criminalize something previously legal. Regulate yes, criminalize no, it would get defeated again at some court level leaving the same mess as before
And given many cities in Canada already basically legalize prositituion (body rub parlours which get licensed and are allowed to advertise and provide sexual services) it makes more sense for him to do nothing (or set up a endless committee until its too late) to let it fall into the provinces lap
And given many cities in Canada already basically legalize prositituion (body rub parlours which get licensed and are allowed to advertise and provide sexual services) it makes more sense for him to do nothing (or set up a endless committee until its too late) to let it fall into the provinces lap
While it may be rare for previously legal activities to become illegal it does happen. It is now illegal in most 1st world countries for a man to rape his wife. All the countries implementing or considering the Nordic model previously had legal prostitution in one form or another. So, in this particular area of law lack of precedence doesn't seem to be an insurmountable barrier.
Alan Young gets it.
“I would prefer if another prime minister and another party were to look at this issue,” said Young. “But you play the cards you’ve been dealt.”
It seems you are more confident than Alan Young. I'll go with his assessment.
which is hillarious to me since abolitionists claimed to have wanted to "decrim" women "victims". now they find themselves at a cross roads. do and support what they know is wrong and what they advocate against or.....fight with us....dare i say it....
The NDP refused to adopt legalization as policy.
The resolution you're referring to that was rejected read as follows:
[..]
BE IT RESOLVED that the Federal NDP affirm its commitment to amending sections 210-213 of the Criminal Code so as to provide a safe and legal environment for sex workers to practice their trade.
Prostitution is legal. The NDP did not have a resolution to change this. The only resolution they had on the topic was what is above (3-30-13), dealing with the validity of sections 210-213 of the Criminal Code. But, given that this specific question was currently before the courts, it wouldn't have been appropriate for the NDP to, in effect, comment on the case via this resolution. There was no need for the NDP to make its case against the provisions of the Criminal Code. The case was already being made at the SCC.
I think you're right about Harper and the Conservatives though. Likely Harper will want to appeal to his base (IE, Real Women, etc.) via some move to criminalize.
ETA: There was another resolution too which was similar, that being 6-31-13, that also in essence echoed the argument of Bedford.
A possible comparator is gaming, which Parliament technically prohibits under the Criminal Code but then delegates to provinces (some of which in turn delegate to others) the ability to run all sorts of enterprises.
Not my favourite use of the division of powers, but one that the Supreme Court has upheld.
ETA: I am of course oversimplifying, but that's the general idea.
Oh, yes, good comparator.
which is hillarious to me since abolitionists claimed to have wanted to "decrim" women "victims". now they find themselves at a cross roads. do and support what they know is wrong and what they advocate against or.....fight with us....dare i say it....
Abolitionists are fighting for the Nordic Model. That is why I am happy about the SCC decision. I was not happy with the status quo. I don't want prostitutes to be arrested, certainly not for carrying condoms. I don't see any cross roads and I am certain that we are right to oppose any legitimization of the industry.
Cross-posting from the "sex workers sharing experiences" thread as I am not one myself so that's not really the place.
An interesting column by David DesBaillets.
http://looniepolitics.com/harper-governments-antipathy-harm-reduction-wi...
Why do the Liberals have no real response to this ruling? We cannot let this law-and-order government move the lives of these workers back in the shadows. Let's hope the opposition will be vocal in order to create a valid environment for these people.
Yes a very interesting column. I have met David at a convention (he is dating an NDP MP).
RE: Liberals - In 2010 when the Ontario Superior Court had a (short-lived) ruling decriminalizing solicitation, Hedy Fry wrote a blog post "Sex Workers Have Rights Too". "This is an important step in recognizing the constitutional rights of adult sex-trade workers to security of the person and acknowledges the difference between the rights of consenting adults and the exploitation of vulnerable persons. The ruling is not the only solution, but it is an important start." On the day of the Dec 20 ruling, "SCC ruling on prostitution confirms what my Comittee (sic) heard across country. We do not protect vulnerable women esp street sex-trade workers." She has consistently advocated harm reduction but I am surprised she has not been more vocal in discussing the ruling. You can see a short quote from Trudeau indicating his ambivalence here: http://dailyxtra.com/canada/news/justin-trudeaus-priorities
The most interesting (to me) sentence in DesBaillets' column is the last one:
More likely, that they will find some way to undermine the court’s attempts at promoting harm reduction measures for sex workers by outlawing prostitution outright.
Not many commentators seem to be expressing that concern. I think needs to be front and centre, until it proves unfounded.
Hebert expresses* why she suspects the feds won't use the notwithstanding clause on the Bedford decision.
* The Star, Mon Jan 06 2014.
Hebert expresses* why she suspects the feds won't use the notwithstanding clause on the Bedford decision.
I agree with her. If the Cons ever go the notwithstanding route, they have much bigger fish their base would love them to fry.
But unfortunately Hébert, like most others, doesn't consider the possibility of the Cons going the much simpler route of just banning the sale of sex for money, altogether, and not bothering with the notwithstanding clause. It might even withstand a Charter challenge.
Any guesses what the results would be if the parties allowed a free vote on that?
My guess is it won't happen. The courts are way too clogged now for a new law that would be out of touch with reality and would not work.
Haven't been folowing this, but did notice two entries on it at the McGill Law Journal podcasts site:
http://podcasts.mcgill.ca/law-society/episode-17-ag-canada-v-bedford-par...
Thanks jas, that was interesting.
I thought this might be a good place to put this link to a story about what the Swedish government is actually doing and thinking about the law that seems to be held up to some kind of mythic level.
http://www.newsinenglish.no/2014/01/09/prostitution-law-battlelines-drawn/
New government has a standing of being against the criminalization of clients. Also, the law is due this year to be reviewed. Similar in New Zealand, which went the other way by decriminalizing and regulating sex work, NZ did a study 5 years later to show the real effects of the law. (which in essence said there was none of the changes that the nay sayers claimed would happen, but there were overall better working conditions for sex workers).
The controversial law passed in 2009 does not ban the sale of sex, but prohibits people from buying it. The parties that opposed the law now hold the majority in parliament, newspaperAftenposten reported. The Greens (De Grønne) also want the law overturned. The parties who previously held government, Labour (Arbeiderpartiet, Ap), Centre (Senterpartiet, Sp) and Socialist Left (Sosialistisk Venstreparti, SV) sided with the KrF to keep the law in place.
FrP politician Jan Arild Ellingsen, who sits on the justice committee, said the balance of power in the parliament means it’s simply a matter of time before the prostitution law is repealed. The review by independent consultants Vista Analyse will be presented to parliament as a white paper mid-year, but Ellingsen said his party’s position is already set.
I thought this might be a good place to put this link to a story about what the Swedish government is actually doing and thinking about the law that seems to be held up to some kind of mythic level.
http://www.newsinenglish.no/2014/01/09/prostitution-law-battlelines-drawn/
That's an interesting article. However, there's a typo in your post, in that it's the Norwegian government in the story, not the Swedish government.
In another of many many threads on this subject, (Bärlüer) cited this La Presse article, where Peter Mackay is quoted in an interview as saying (my translation):
"Concentrating on those who commit the crime - that is, the pimps and their customers - will very surely form part of the Canadian government's response"
[my emphasis]
Assuming this quote is direct and accurate (as indicated) - and even though Mackay says they'll be looking at the Nordic model among many others - which specific "crime" do we think he is talking about?
Yeah, that same part attracted my attention too when I read the article.
It's a problematic formulation, because the whole point of the Criminal Code is to define what is a crime. That is the task that the Supreme Court handed over to Parliament. It did not invalidate provisions relating to sentencing; it invalidated provisions establishing offences.
Mark_alfred, I'm asking about Canada. Not Sweden. Don't you think 500 threads about the Nordic or whatever model are enough????
Mackay is talking about Canada too. He seems to be saying that sex for money is a "crime" (which, of course, we know it is not - neither before nor after the Bedford decision).
I have expressed, many times, my worry that this government will criminalize sex work, and escape, fully, the logic of the Bedford decision. This comment by Mackay, if accurately reported, does little to alleviate my worry.
i might be voting conservative in the next election...!!!!!!!
i might be voting conservative in the next election...!!!!!!!
That's your prerogative, of course, but I'm not sure criminalizing the sale of sexual services will do much to stop the physical and spiritual and political and economic harm to women that we all seek to end.
In the United States, prostitution is illegal - everywhere except in some parts of Nevada. Are women better off there?
Here's a more complete list of countries where sex work is illegal:
In these countries prostitution itself (exchanging sex for money) is illegal. The punishment for prostitution varies considerably: in some countries, it can incur the death penalty,[1] in other jurisdictions, it is a crime punishable with a prison sentence, while in others it is a lesser administrative offense punishable only with a fine.
- Africa: Algeria, Angola, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe
- Asia: Afghanistan,[39] Bahrain,[40] Burma,[hr 1] Brunei,[41] China,[hr 2] Iraq,[42] Iran,[43] Japan (illegal, but no judicial penalty is defined, see Prostitution in Japan), Jordan,[44] Kuwait,[45] Laos,[hr 3] Maldives,[46] Mongolia,[hr 4] North Korea,[hr 5] Oman,[47] Pakistan,[48] Philippines,[hr 6] Qatar,[49] Saudi Arabia,[50] South Korea,[hr 7] Sri Lanka,[hr 8] Syria,[51] Taiwan,[hr 9] Tajikistan,[52] Thailand,[hr 10] Turkmenistan,[53] United Arab Emirates,[54] Uzbekistan,[55] Vietnam,[hr 11] Yemen.[56]
- Europe: Albania, Andorra, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia, Croatia, Georgia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Norway, Romania, Russia, San Marino, Serbia, Sweden, Ukraine. In Sweden, Norway and Iceland it is illegal to pay for sex (the client commits a crime, but not the prostitute)
- North America: Antigua and Barbuda,[hr 12] The Bahamas,[hr 13] Barbados,[hr 14] Dominica,[hr 15] Grenada,[hr 16] Haiti,[hr 17] Jamaica,[hr 18] Saint Kitts and Nevis,[hr 19] Saint Lucia,[hr 20] Trinidad and Tobago,[hr 21] United States (no federal law except for certain conditions set by the Mann Act, but illegal in all states except Nevada, where some rural counties license brothels, see Prostitution in the United States).
- Oceania: Fiji,[hr 22] Samoa,[57] Marshall Islands,[hr 23] Nauru,[hr 24] Palau,[hr 25] Papua New Guinea,[hr 26] Solomon Islands,[hr 27] Tuvalu,[hr 28] Vanuatu,[hr 29] The Federated States of Micronesia.[58]
- South America: Guyana,[hr 30] Suriname.[hr 31]
Whether we think sex for money is good, or bad, or undecided, can we not all at least agree that criminal prosecution of women for selling sex is not the way forward?
the nordic model doesn't criminalize women selling themselves sexually. try not to pretend it does and i think they should. tks.
the nordic model doesn't criminalize women selling themselves sexually. try not to pretend it does and i think they should. tks.
I'll try one more time. [b]THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT THE NORDIC MODEL. THERE ARE MANY OTHER THREADS ABOUT THAT.[/b]
This thread is about the Bedford decision and how the Conservative government may react.
Peter Mackay called the sale of sex a "CRIME" in an interview yesterday. He clearly stated (as opposed to what some posters above hope or expect) that they WILL introduce legislation. My worry (for the 100th time) is that they may [b]criminalize the sale of sex[/b] - not just customers, pimps, etc. - just as is the case in the U.S.
I take it you would NOT support the criminalization of the sale of sex (even if you support the Nordic or whatever model) - because that would make sex workers criminals.
Can we at least agree on that?
If you consider the Conservatives' persistence on fighting present and future safe-injection sites despite court rulings, I think it's a very valid concern that they will make similar moves on sex work. Both are cases where relaxing current laws would reduce harm and save lives, and both are cases where Conservatives really don't care and will want to have their way.
we are working on it....don't want to tip my hand on what we're working on but we're workin' on it!!! any suggestions welcome!!
I thought this might be a good place to put this link to a story about what the Swedish government is actually doing and thinking about the law that seems to be held up to some kind of mythic level.
http://www.newsinenglish.no/2014/01/09/prostitution-law-battlelines-drawn/
That's an interesting article. However, there's a typo in your post, in that it's the Norwegian government in the story, not the Swedish government.
oh, cool thx for the info. I did remember about Norway passing it as well. it will be good to see it removed from there. i think it is the controversial use of the word 'nordic' to describe this type of law that continues to confuse the issue.
I observe that no one in any of the multiple threads arguing about the sex trade or the Bedford decision that no one has considered the obvious...the need for a collective workers voice. Workers are exploited unless they unionize. In principle why is unionization of sex workers not part of this discussion?
it has been, many times....
here's the occupational health and safety trsining we designed
www.tradesecretsguide.blogspot.com
here's the reports about union organizing;
http://bccec.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/opening-the-doors-report-short-201111.doc
http://www.wccsip.ca/caec.html
http://www.wccsip.ca/doc/laborOnTheMargins.pdf
these things are all well underway but we only have a year to contend with the inplementation of the "nordic model" by the harper harpies....
while union is great, since criminalization is now a possibility again, very few workers will be willing to put their real names on any kind of membership list...
once we are certain of our future in terms of criminality of sex work, then that work can really begin....
for now we are using on-line, informal spaces to vet any actions taken or priorities being set. it has worked well but once we are through we could work on making it really legitimate.
I observe that no one in any of the multiple threads arguing about the sex trade or the Bedford decision that no one has considered the obvious...the need for a collective workers voice. Workers are exploited unless they unionize. In principle why is unionization of sex workers not part of this discussion?
I've mentioned it in an earlier post.
As susan observes, serious unionization efforts can only occur if there is no threat of criminalization of the work that sex workers perform.
And that's another reason why the "Nordic model" is just as wrong-headed as complete criminalization: in both cases, the transaction is rendered illegal. As susan notes, sex workers just won't come to the front under these circumstances. And I can even envision arguments raising the fact that the "object" of the contract of employment is illegal to put up all kinds of hurdles...
The best way to institute mechanisms that will help improve the conditions of sex workers (including through unionization) is to have that work recognized as legal by the state. It is unjustifiable to deprive sex workers of all the protections that the law affords other workers (labour standards legislation, health and occupational safety legislation, labour relations legislation, etc. etc.)
It is unjustifiable to deprive sex workers of all the protections that the law affords other workers (labour standards legislation, health and occupational safety legislation, labour relations legislation, etc. etc.)
Of course, Bärlüer, the protections you mention are only afforded to employees - couldn't that be another hurdle?
You know, I'm not so sure the Cons will want to take a hard line with this. There's not a lot of hay to make with topics like these which most voters would rather ignore.
For every member of their base who feels vindicated by an outright ban, you'll have a swing voter who feels uncomfortable with the party tilting at so-con windmills. Any legislation that criminalizes sex work will be hit with loads of legal challenges and fill the news cycles for ages. Is that what the Cons want to be seen fighting for heading into the election, when they're trying so hard to hold onto their image as competent managers in the wake of recent scandals?
I think for Harper, the best resolution to this is the one that wraps up the quickest. Then he can move on to a new narrative in time for the election.
It is unjustifiable to deprive sex workers of all the protections that the law affords other workers (labour standards legislation, health and occupational safety legislation, labour relations legislation, etc. etc.)Of course, Bärlüer, the protections you mention are only afforded to employees - couldn't that be another hurdle?
I think, but am not 100% sure, but the independent sex workers in NZ are considered to be operating their own brothel if they work alone providing a location for clients to come to them. I can see a case for regulations on occupationalal safety could still be expected to apply to them as well, and i do think that providing the services are mandated by these regulations to be safe (covered) services, so i can't see an independent being exempt by these regulations. (by covered, this refers to the fact that oral sex can only be done with barrier, like with condoms, just as mandated by law (and common sense) sex is provided only when condoms are used). Anyone not complying with this, or asking for it, for example, can be fined.
If you run your own business, or are a registered massage therapist working from a home based business, i think you would still have to run the business according to workplace regulations. You'd also have to join an association which is not a union, and you would be able to either be an employee or self employed. It, and business like massage therapy, would be the closest example of how sex workers operate.
There are a few organizations for sex workers in Canada, but considering that not all sex workers are employees, i don't see a case where all sex workers are going to be forced to join a union.
Link to the NZ prostitute collective recap of the laws/regulations/working conditions
Off the top of my head, aren't there unions for actors, screenwriters etc. which have huge memberships even though the vast majority of work they cover is as independent contractors rather than employees? Any other professions where this is typically the case?
Another collective model is the co-op. I see the pioneering WCCSIP was linked to above. If there were no legal barriers involved, what might a successful sex workers' co-operative look like decades hence?
It is unjustifiable to deprive sex workers of all the protections that the law affords other workers (labour standards legislation, health and occupational safety legislation, labour relations legislation, etc. etc.)Of course, Bärlüer, the protections you mention are only afforded to employees - couldn't that be another hurdle?
Of course, but it seems to me that a significant number of sex workers would meet the legal criteria and qualify as employees.
As for truly independent contractors, they can still benefit from some protections: for instance, in Quebec, off the top of my head, they could benefit from the protection of the Act Respecting Industrial Accidents and Occupational Diseases if they register themselves; they can also benefit from the Québec Parental Insurance Plan.
Of course, but it seems to me that a significant number of sex workers would meet the legal criteria and qualify as employees.
As for truly independent contractors, they can still benefit from some protections: for instance, in Quebec, off the top of my head, they could benefit from the protection of the Act Respecting Industrial Accidents and Occupational Diseases if they register themselves; they can also benefit from the Québec Parental Insurance Plan.
i also think they would qualify, but i think also that the employer would find a way, as employers tend to do, to avoid having them as true employees. In these sorts of setups, like massage parlour or agency work, the person is not paid unless they have an appointment. This avoids the minimum hourly wage, employee deductions and benefits. In this kind of situation, as well, someone can be required to act as an employee (be assigned a shift, be expected to show up for the shift, be expected to do some shift duties (which may involve laundry, cleanup, housekeeping, phones), for specific periods of time, but they will not be paid for their time there. They could, however, be fined if they fail to show up, fail to be on time for a preset appointment, fail to show up for a prebooked appointment.
There are a few things that worker advocates can certainly assist in protecting the rights of workers who are employees in every way but name.
MacKay's trolling of Justin Trudeau has provoked a response finally.
According to Justin Ling's Twitter feed: Trudeau just said that prostitution is "a form of violence against women." Count him out of the legalization category. Trudeau again signals that he's nominally for the Nordic Model.
Some babblers who would like to discuss the Bedford decision and its aftermath are prohibited from posting in this forum, or otherwise reluctant to do so. In the interest of inclusiveness, I would like to suggest that that conversation (which will go on for several months at least) be resumed here:
How will parties approach the legality of sex work after the Supreme Court decision?
That's a more speculative political discussion, which is fine, while this is a more celebratory legal discussion, which is also fine. Thus, I'll post in both. And those who aren't comfortable with sex workers rights, well, I'm glad they aren't comfortable polluting this thread. They can espouse their view that disempowering sex workers is somehow feminist elsewhere, but not herre. Those comfortable with sex workers' rights can then freely discuss the legalities and benefits of empowering this group of workers, who historically have been victimized and discriminated against due to prejudice and stupid laws. Let's stop prejudice and stupid laws and empower some workers. And the first battle was won by Bedford over the yokels in the current government.
I like you, mark 
I also don't see why the exact same topic can't be started in this section, as in a way, it might keep the parrots at bay. I am all for debate and discussion, but when I see someone linking to a debunked myth and putting it up as the sole reason they want to abolish the sex trade, the person stops being credible.
fwiw, Trudeau may be at odds with his young Liberals, who say this http://www.theprovince.com/news/Young+Liberals+will+pressure+federal+par...
Federal Liberals in B.C. are proposing a resolution for the party’s next national convention aimed at ensuring sex trade workers are legally able to run a “safe and successful business,” which would be licensed to safeguard employees, employers and clients and taxed just like “any other commercial enterprise.”
The resolution was initiated last year by Young Liberals in B.C. and was later adopted by the provincial branch of the federal party as one of 10 priority resolutions it would like to see debated at the national convention in Montreal next month.
Interesting regarding the Young Liberals. I've had some informative discussions with the subset of YLs that I can actually carry on a respectful conversation with. Apparently most of the social policy that top Liberals dragged their feet on for years was at odds with YLs who wanted them to get with the times. So if you like being in a party that doesn't align with your values but might bend if you lobby them long enough, by all means join the red team.
Interesting regarding the Young Liberals. I've had some informative discussions with the subset of YLs that I can actually carry on a respectful conversation with. Apparently most of the social policy that top Liberals dragged their feet on for years was at odds with YLs who wanted them to get with the times. So if you like being in a party that doesn't align with your values but might bend if you lobby them long enough, by all means join the red team.
i imagine my family would disown me if i were to join L. Altho not a joiner, the only acceptable party in my family is NDP as far as I know. I know, tho, that there are groups of people out there who simply cannot identify with it. There must be something missing if they are not appealing to the Young Liberals, or young conservatives, etc. There must be a way to address the concerns of the politically active youth, in other words.
Not sure what it would be.
i imagine my family would disown me if i were to join L. Altho not a joiner, the only acceptable party in my family is NDP as far as I know. I know, tho, that there are groups of people out there who simply cannot identify with it. There must be something missing if they are not appealing to the Young Liberals, or young conservatives, etc. There must be a way to address the concerns of the politically active youth, in other words.
Not sure what it would be.
Drifting off topic here so any further discussion should probably move to the relevant political thread. But I find that left-leaning Liberals all tend to have some sort of idiosyncratic reason as to why they can never possibly be involved in the NDP. Usually there is some particular NDP policy or scandal that pissed them off enough that they will stay away for life. Which I can understand because the NDP ticks off its own supporters regularly. Sometimes with the YL crowd I find that they were born into through-and-through Liberal families, where it is more palatable to advocate from inside the party than to leave it. And then there are other Young Liberals who are more Red Tory inclined and the red team is close enough.
Speaking of which...
http://www.vice.com/read/ibiza-sex-workers-have-formed-spains-first-pros...
The first sex worker’s co-operative has recently formed in Ibiza, the party island of Spain. Marking the country’s first union for prostitutes, The Sex Services Cooperative of Spain (Sealeer Co-operative) allows its members to obtain work permits, pay taxes, reap the benefits of health care, pension and get their first credit cards. There is an estimated 3,000 prostitutes on the island, with 11 which are members of Seeleer, while 40 more sex workers have applied—all of whom are women.
The collective’s president María José López Armesto, a 42-year-old housewife who is a spokesperson for the sex workers, told AFP the women are pioneers. "We are the first cooperative in Spain that can give legal cover to the girls," she said.
So it's both a union *and* a co-operative.
we did the same here forming canada's first sex worker cooperative and were silenced and trivialized by abolitionists to the point where my life was threatened due to a mis information campaign.
if it wasn't for the barriers put up by abolitionism, we would be so much farther ahead in our fight for our rights.....
The Department of Justice is conducting a public consultation "on the criminal law's response to adult prostitution", from February 17 to March 17. It says that "[i]nput received through this consultation will inform the Government's response to the Bedford decision."
Here are the questions on which input is being sought:
1. Do you think that purchasing sexual services from an adult should be a criminal offence? Should there be any exceptions? Please explain.
2. Do you think that selling sexual services by an adult should be a criminal offence? Should there be any exceptions? Please explain.
3. If you support allowing the sale or purchase of sexual services, what limitations should there be, if any, on where or how this can be conducted? Please explain.
4. Do you think that it should be a criminal offence for a person to benefit economically from the prostitution of an adult? Should there be any exceptions? Please explain.
5. Are there any other comments you wish to offer to inform the Government's response to the Bedford decision?
6. Are you are writing on behalf of an organization? If so, please identify the organization and your title or role:
Chris Bruckert thinks the questions are "loaded".
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Government+prostitution+survey+full+lo...
I don't think they're all that bad. The fourth question may be somewhat leading, but it doesn't stop someone from answering that no new laws are needed since other existing criminal laws, including the remaining parts of section 212, are good enough.
Not that I expect results to influence the present government, but do they have to tabulate and announce results they receive?
