I think the tweets are pretty specific, you'd have to have not read them to think otherwise. also, if more are needed, one only needs go to the tweet account afterbedford for anything i haven't included. They are calling for the SCC to vet it because it will be a complete waste of time to go thru the courts yet again when it is clearly failing to do what it set out to do. The question isn't why are they asking for it to be vetted, it is why isn't the govt eager to prove that it is a viable law and simply send it to be SCC approved. Pondering, as usual you are trying to deflect what the real issue is.
Gustave, it is my opinion that when people were looking at the question of sex work and it occurring around under 18, or near schools etc, the majority of them were thinking of where brothels might open up. I've never seen any one anti commenting about street workers, mostly because street workers are already NOT working near schools or day cares, or even in residential neighbourhoods. Almost everyone who objects, is objecting to brothels on every corner, due to the overturned section 210, regarding bawdy houses. The media also helped blow that up, by referring to bawdy house only as brothels. However any commerical business would have to open only in a business zoning, anyway, so the city bylaws would restrict where it opens (and its hours) EXACTLY the same way they restrict all adult entertainment venues. It is an attempt to mislead people, this additon of under 18 during in public, that that was what people were talking about when they were surveyed.
The vast majority of people have probably never seen or know that they've seen a street worker, and they surely have never known if or when a 'bawdy house' is near them. A bawdy house according to the law can have as little as one single person operating out of it, and is where the majority of calls are done. i actually read one objecter who said that she didn't want a sex worker in her apartment building because one time some guy knocked on her door by mistake, and...... well the comment was already nonsensical, so it isn't worth repeating. joy Smiths claim tho is, that if you outlaw public solicitation where any under 18 year old might be, then that means that a young pretty woman isn't going to have guys come up to her thinking she's a sex worker. Cuz that happens ALL the time. And cuz a law is going to prevent pretty young women from being approached by men.
You seem to have a lot of confidence in what the judges will or won't do. There have been laws about public solicitatiion in place before, the judges had no problem charging street workers with these laws. You sound like Hillyer, who claims that advertising is currently illegal, that C-36 simply continues to make it illegal, but since sex workers are already 'breaking the law' according to him, he sees no reason why they can't simply continue to break the law and continue to do their advertising. Then why is the law there in the first place, if he considers it something readily broken. (btw, advertising is not illegal, and that is something he should already know was dealt with in the courts long ago)
@ Unionist, I haven't seen anything like an official statement from Bloc or Green or NDP, altho it seems like individually they are against the bill. I was thinking, if they are like the Cons, they are unified in their POV as parties, so if NDP Garrison says he is voting against the bill, chances are that is a party policy just not released yet.
Of course the Justice committee, when it gets to that stage, is going to be heavily stacked to ensure the outcome, but at least it will go to the committe. Or course they have done a committee session on the topic of prostitution before in 2004 or so?, where the conclusions were it would be better of decriminalized and regulated, with everyone except the Cons on board with that idea.
