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

fortunate wrote:

http://www.pivotlegal.org/the_new_sex_work_legislation_explained

  http://www.law.utoronto.ca/news/after-bedford-v-canada-panel-draws-packed-crowd-and-protesters

Conclusion of this http://ifls.osgoode.yorku.ca/2014/02/explaining-the-appeal-of-asymmetrical-criminalization-jula-hughes-unb-vanessa-macdonnell-ottawa-karen-pearlston-unb-on-options-bedford-and-the-role-of-legal-professionals/

All of the links you provided are interesting and valuable but also long to read and even longer to respond to. I will eventually do that. It's just too much to manage all at once. 

I think posting exerpts from the Judgement and eventually from the Bill itself will allow people to evaluate the articles you referenced from a position of greater understanding. 

Brachina wrote:

he depends on escorts for intimancy and companionship

He is buying sex and a fake relationship and deluding himself. As soon as he runs out of money the women are gone.

Brachina wrote:

Well I just helped talk a friend out of commiting suicide over this law, he's a nice man whose wife left him years ago, shy and.

If this guy is considering suicide because he is afraid he won’t be able to hire escorts after next fall when the law actually passes the law is not his problem. If he is seeing escorts now all he has to do is keep his little black book up to date. They aren’t going to suddenly vanish into thin air. Why the urgency to die now when the law hasn’t even been passed yet?

He was once brave enough to get himself a wife and apparently he isn’t too shy to hire escorts and tell them what he wants. There are lots of shy lonely women looking for love and companionship. Maybe what he needs is encouragement to develop a real relationship with someone instead of trying to buy one. Maybe not having that is what is making him feel suicidal. Maybe seeing escorts is a crutch preventing him from developing what he really needs, an authentic relationship with another human being. 

Unionist wrote:

The whole movement for decriminalization is being diverted into a formalistic and defeatist "it's unconstituional" route. Where are the voices pressuring politicians that they should simply say NO to criminalization of paid sex?

That is a good point but the best hope for decriminalization in the short term (like around 5 years) is the Supreme Court striking down most of C-36 as unconstitutional. Otherwise we are looking at years, perhaps even decades of activism and gathering of evidence as regards the harmful effects of criminalization on sex workers before a ruling party will be willing to overturn the new status quo.

Unionist wrote:

3. Demanding referral to the Supreme Court is an offensive copout. Imagine Harper tabling a bill restoring the death penalty, and the opposition saying: "Well, we won't give any opinion about whether the death penalty should be restored, but we [b]DEMAND[/b] that you ask the Supreme Court what they think first." Or abortion, contraception, same-sex marriage... Or cannabis. We do not need cowards pretending to play at "opposition". So far, that includes all of them. They're not looking at safety of sex workers, or basic human needs - they're counting polls and votes.

Exactly. They aren't even saying which parts they think might be unconstitutional. 

Unionist wrote:

4. I believe there is an excellent chance that the Supreme Court, if it ever hears a challenge to this bill, will [b]not[/b] strike down the criminalization of the purchase of sex. The entire logic of the Court's decision in Bedford was that the paid sex transaction was [b]lawful[/b], and that the impugned provisions created an unreasonable infringement on the security of sex workers. How does the argument go when the transaction becomes unlawful? Buying sex isn't a protected Charter right in any universe I know.

I agree, and I have been studying what the SCC said about the s.1 arguments they refused to hear. I recall some pundits saw it as a problem that the SCC refused to hear the s.1. arguments but I think I understand why they refused. Because the plaintiff can't be expected to challenge the laws as they are written, and also fight a separate case based on the unintended consequences of the laws. 

I believe bill C-36 will survive an s. 7. challenge but if it doesn't it will pass the s.1 challenge which overrides s.7 and unlike the previous laws the SCC will hear both the s. 7 and s. 1 challenges because the intent and outcomes of the legislation will match. 

http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1391112250275

The rights and freedoms in the Charter are not absolute. They can be limited in order to protect other rights or important national values. For example, freedom of expression may be limited by laws against hate propaganda or pornography.

Section 1 of the Charter says that Charter rights can be limited by other laws so long as those limits can be shown to be reasonable in a free and democratic society.

The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that a limit on Charter rights is acceptable if:

• the limit deals with a pressing and substantial social problem, and
• the government's response to the problem is reasonable and demonstrably justified.

Fighting Bill C 36 will be far more difficult than fighting the old laws. 

Instead of being grateful for the crumbs being tossed out by the Liberals and the NDP, I would hold their feet to the fire. 

cco wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The rights and freedoms in the Charter are not absolute. They can be limited in order to protect other rights or important national values. For example, freedom of expression may be limited by laws against hate propaganda or pornography.

Did you intend these to be positive examples?

Neither positive nor negative, just factual. I agree with Unionist that those banking on a quick Charter challenge as has happened with marijuana are mistaken. 

The pundits and activist lawyer writing as though C 36 will be easily defeated on the same grounds as the old laws are full of holes a truck could drive through. 

The preamble is hugely important and it isn't being analysed by anyone in the media. Discussion of the law has remained on a superficial political I like/don't like it so it will/will not hold. 

Unionist wrote:

 

The whole movement for decriminalization is being diverted into a formalistic and defeatist "it's unconstituional" route. Where are the voices pressuring politicians that they should simply say NO to criminalization of paid sex?

 

with the existing laws tho, won't decriminalization remove 211-213 entirely, which means that coercion will no longer be against the law?   I can't see a good reason for that, as i think the laws selected to be challenged and that were overturned were the right ones.    The others i am perfectly ok with keeping, as i have listed them elsewhere i won't bother doing so again.    

Are the opposing parties able to come up with what goes along with decriminalization, and is that maybe why they don't just shout that out.  And why should they, isn't saying throw out C-36 the same thing as saying leave things the way they are right now?  That there are already ample laws to deal with all of the relevant issues (I do not consider criminalization of clients relevant or logical).    

in other words, isn't the most adequate response to this to send it to the SCC and have it overturned and stop wasting everyone's time with it's ridiculous proposals.  

By what happens with decrim, is that obviously you then have to put in place regulations and sex work related labour laws, etc, a la New Zealand.   Has anyone done that?  or are they just looking at the SCC challenge ruling and saying, yep, that's good the way it is now, i think that everyone can go about their business without increasing their own risk.    And that is the point of decriminalization of bawdy houses and loosening the living off the avails.    

Libby Davies has been absent from the debate, as have a long list of others, due to other committee commitments.    it was a lot of NDP members absent.  I am wondering why that is, because had they been there, during the second reading, which passed at 137 to 117, who knows, it might not have made it to the next step.   I find it curious that that many NDP members were unable to vote.   

here is the list

The following Bloc members did not vote:

• André Bellavance
• Louis Plamondon

The following Conservative members did not vote:

• John Baird
• Dean Allison
• Leona Aglukkaq
• Garry Breitkreuz
• Rod Bruinooge
• John Carmichael
• Tony Clement
• Barry Devolin
• Peter Kent
• Mike Lake
• Ryan Leef
• Andrew Scheer
• Bruce Stanton
• Maurice Vellacott

The following Green Party members did not vote:

• Bruce Hyer

The following Independent members did not vote:

• Brent Rathgeber

The following Liberal members did not vote:

• Carolyn Bennett
• Gerry Byrne
• Irwin Cotler
• Judy Foote
• Chrystia Freeland
• Hedy Fry
• Ted Hsu
• Yvonne Jones
• Dominic LeBlanc
• John McCallum
• John McKay
• Massimo Pacetti
• Geoff Regan
• Judy Sgro
• Justin Trudeau

The following NDP members did not vote:

• Malcolm Allen
• Charlie Angus
• Paulina Ayala
• Dennis Bevington
• Alexandre Boulerice
• Andrew Cash
• Chris Charlton
• David Christopherson
• Ryan Cleary
• Joe Comartin
• Don Davies
• Libby Davies
• Matthew Dubé
• Pierre-Luc Dusseault
• Claude Gravelle
• Dan Harris
• Sana Hassainia
• Carol Hughes
• Matthew Kellway
• Alexandrine Latendresse
• Megan Leslie
• Brian Masse
• Marc-André Morin
• Peggy Nash
• Jamie Nicholls
• Manon Perreault
• John Rafferty
• Jasbir Sandhu
• Craig Scott
• Peter Stoffer
• Mike Sullivan
• Glenn Thibeault
• Jonathan Tremblay

Unionist wrote:

She certainly is silent about decriminalization, which she used to advocate quite openly and audibly.

Decriminalization of sex workers is easy to sell outside a few "conservative" circles. Opposing criminalization of the demand is an other thing. It's hard to provide arguments that will not, at one point or an other, legitimize it. And that is a No No.

I wish it would go before the SCC prior to being passed but I suspect there isn't time. The SCC usually takes it's time coming to decisions and the law has to pass the Senate before December 1st. Governments don't typically put their legislation to the SCC before passing it and the Cons are arrogant. 

The NDP and the Liberals put together do not have enough seats to stop this bill at any stage or to force the Cons to do anything. The Cons have a majority of votes. 

The challenge was won based on the legislative goal being to deter nuisance and exploitation by pimps in the case of living off the avails. No matter how detailed the analysis of C - 36 if it ignores the preamble it is not a serious legal analysis because the preamble dramatically changes the legislative goals that are tested by s. 7. and opens the door to an s. 1. defense of the law by the crown. 

The legislative goals are far more powerful and the means through which they are achieved are completely different. It is not at all just a case of proving that the same outcomes result from the laws. 

The arguments complaining how difficult it will be to do business prove the Crown's argument that it's legislative goal is being met, deterring prostitution. 

The Cons are being secretive because that is what they do. Information is power and they don't want to share it. 

fortunate wrote:

You've been told many times that sex work is not always about penetrative sexual intercourse, but your mental challenge is that you won't accept truths, and you go out of your way to make up or invent or find 'evidence' to prove your illogical misconceptions. 

A person is not your friend if they won't see you unless you pay them. A shy divorced suicidal man needs help and encouragement to start a real relationship with someone not sympathy because he can't hire someone to pretend to have a relationship with him.  

fortunate wrote:

Did someone claim to be a friend?    If you go to the same hair stylist regularly, are you friendly with them, do you share stories, do you have a relationship with them, or do you consider them 'the help', throw them your money, and sit in silence keeping an eye on them to be sure that they are doing the job you are paying them to do.

Yes we talk, no I don't throw my money at them, no they don't see me unless I have money to pay them for cutting my hair. They never call me up for a chat. 

A person who is suicidal will not be cured by a haircut relationship or even by a paid relationship with a therapist. The therapist doesn't help by allowing the patient to rely on them for companionship. They help the individual develop real relationships that they don't have to pay for. 

Pondering wrote:

A person who is suicidal will not be cured by a haircut relationship or even by a paid relationship with a therapist. 

I think you are wrong on both those points. Suicidal people respond to various types of intervention including for some something as simple as having a good hair day after a nice chat with a friendly person. As for paid therapists are you really saying therapy cannot help prevent suicide in patients?

Pondering wrote:

A haircut and a chat might make someone who is down feel more cheerful but it isn't likely to change someone's mind about wanting to die. 

I can't agree. Do you have any studies or is that merely your personal opinion as well? I'm of the view that life altering events happen to people at different times and are unpredictable. 

If a haircut and chat makes one feel cheerful then at least for a while it means they are not dwelling on suicide. It might just be the trigger to get their brain out of a loop and onto more productivve thoughts.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

A person who is suicidal will not be cured by a haircut relationship or even by a paid relationship with a therapist. 

I think you are wrong on both those points. Suicidal people respond to various types of intervention including for some something as simple as having a good hair day after a nice chat with a friendly person. As for paid therapists are you really saying therapy cannot help prevent suicide in patients?

Many people respond to kindness.   And why should paying a therapist to listen (and be kind) be any different or less healing that paying an escort to listen (and be kind).   And why should the mere payment degrade a relationship regardless of what the circumstances of the relationship is.  To me, pondering is saying that an escort is incapable of being a human being capable of feelings of compassion for someone other than themselves, or motivated by something other than $$.  As in, she's getting paid to pretend to care, like she's incapable of having actual feelings for someone who comes to see her.   A therapist won't continue to see a client without being paid, so absence of payment is also not a sign the escort has to prove something.

This is not meant to be an insult, pondering, but sometimes you come off as someone who completely lacks empathy for other human beings.       And now unionist will let us know that everyone is off topic again.   :)

Pondering wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I can't agree. Do you have any studies or is that merely your personal opinion as well? I'm of the view that life altering events happen to people at different times and are unpredictable. 

If a haircut and chat makes one feel cheerful then at least for a while it means they are not dwelling on suicide. It might just be the trigger to get their brain out of a loop and onto more productivve thoughts.

Nope no studies but if it's that unpredictable we should stop covering therapy fees and send people for a hair-cut instead. It's a much less expensive way to jog people out of their suicidal mood. 

Poorly veiled sarcasm, dismissive much? What is the point of a discussion with you?

One of the things that is true is that people need more than paid relationships in their lifes. We seem to agree on that point but somehow you haven't got the message.

Pondering wrote:

Oh I get the message, I just don't agree that a hair cut or any other pleasant experience, even going to Disney World, is a means of preventing people from being suicidal. I know people who have been severely depressed and these are not solutions to suicidal thoughts. Justification or lack thereof for prostitution rests on the well-being of women.

There is disagreement over whether it is more damaging to women for prostitution to be legitimized or not. If it is damaging to women, then suicidal men are not a reason to sacrifice them. If it isn't damaging to women then it is also immaterial whether or not the man is suicidal unless he wants to take a woman with him. 

 

And because it is NOT damaging to women, therefore there is no reason why women in the sex trade cannot be a form of support for men and women who don't feel that great about themselves.   It is because the abolitionists lie about this as violence or damaging that we even have a discussion about it all.   Sex workers are free to provide whatever type of sessions for their clients as they see fit, and based on what the client is looking for.  As long as that fits within the sex worker boundaries, then some outsiders deciding that is an 'inappropriate' use of sex worker services is immaterial.  

Bog post for those interested on the topic of compassionate care, or whatever we call it:   http://becauseimawhore.com/2011/08/17/sex-as-a-service/

Rabble article today, on topic again, http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/views-expressed/2014/06/mackays-bill-c-36-creates-more-harm-good-its-time-he-listens#comment-1445835

The SCC's 80 page ruling cited failures in the system and how the current laws bear responsibility for the many risks and deaths sex workers face, and finally, that the laws do infringe upon a sex worker's section 7 Charter rights to security of the person "by preventing implementation of safety measures that could protect them from violent clients."

So here's where MacKay steps in with Bill C-36. Or rather, stomps in like a villainous monster with heavy feet, crushing everything in its path.

Not only does the bill flagrantly disregard the spirit of the SCC ruling, rendering the bill unconstitutional, it creates even more harms than the original laws. Upon closer analysis, sex workers are indeed criminalized in many -- if not most -- instances of selling their services.

Offering services safely in public? Criminal. Working together? Criminal. Working in a regular indoor location? Criminal. Working underage? Criminal. Advertising someone's services? Criminal. And so it goes...

These laws aren't about protecting workers; they're full on NIMBYism.

....

But let's get something straight: it's not the act of selling sex that is inherently dangerous, it's all the laws surrounding it.

You can listen to the 'rescue industry' all you want as they quote from fake statistics, debunked studies and government propaganda as to the true numbers of those in sex work.

....

But who do you think are better judges of who is exploited and who isn't? Is itpoliticians protecting their own base? The people who fundraise for their own celebrated foundations? Or maybe it's columnists for popular national publications.

No, it's the people who actually work in the industry who are the best judges.

.......

I recently attended an event that touted itself as an open forum for discussion about what's next for Canada's prostitution laws. What it turned out to be was a room of 30 or so well-coiffed guests and organizers arguing against the decriminalization of sex work, and me plus one other gentleman arguing for it.

Tax evasion, nasty STI transmission, the sanctity of marriage, absent fathers buying sex, why the government should bother protecting those who choose to do dangerous work, pimps and why-can't-they-just-get-a-real-job concerns: This is the face behind C-36's mask. 

Their issues trumped the actual issue at hand: safety and human rights for all Canadians, just as our Supreme Court wants the government to implement. 

 

 

 

 

 

I think there were more attendees at the Red Umbrella walks on June 14 than attended Joy Smiths debateable 'town hall discussion of C-36"

https://twitter.com/MPJoySmith/media

OH, and this i saw on the @afterbedford twitter feed  https://twitter.com/AfterBedford

"I have 55,000 postcards that I cannot present to the House." say @MPJoySmith during QP. Then in a press release it's down to 10,000.

When in the twitter media feed for Joy Smith the caption is "Delighted to receive petitions with over 3000 names supporting Bill C-36. Thank you"

and that, ladies and gentlemen, is where the abolitionists come up with their statistics.   They make them up out of much lower numbers, or non existent numbers.  They inflate, then inflate the inflation, until there are more sex workers trafficked into a country than there are PEOPLE living in the country.    

Mórríghain wrote:

Pondering wrote:

There is disagreement over whether it is more damaging to women for prostitution to be legitimized or not.

Don't stress over this point; regardless of your personal views prostitution will never be 'legitimized'.

I actually adopted the term "legitimize" to replace the decriminalization/legalization debate. "Legitimizing" meaning it's no longer illegal. 

I agree that it will never be destigmatized. 

This is an analysis of "nordic style' policing, a test run so to speak, done for street workers in Vancouver.    Take the time to read and really study the results of this initiative, and the information collected by the researchers.    I've posted many articles and similar things in the sex worker forum, for those who wish to actually inform themselves on the topic (many rabblers articles too lol)

the PIVOT report shows what is being done, what the researchers concluded about the police actions, and then also constitutional analysis of that action/result.    

But also, there is in there reports, from the VPD about the # of arrests.   Which begs the question, is this really the results that the public expects to see.  With a real crack down on enforcement and focus on the clients (of street workers, now, which abolitionists still seem to insist is the majority of all workers) in 2012 there were 47 charged, and with even more focus thru 2013, there were 71.    

Hardly seems like there are so many 'perverts' out there that it even warrants much attention at all, particularly when the activity itself is legal, these guys are simply being charged due to where they are at the time of negotiations.  

http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/pivotlegal/pages/615/attachments/original/1401811234/My_Work_Should_Not_Cost_Me_My_Life.pdf?1401811234

findings from the BMJ Open report by Krusi et al.

While sex workers who participated in the GSHI/UBCresearch felt that the shift away from arresting sex workers has been a positive step forward, their narratives clearly illustrate that the overall impact of the change has been severely curtailed by the continued dangerous conditions created by police efforts to target clients. The report concludes that criminalization of clients impacts sex workers’ safetyby exposing them to significant safety and health risks,including: displacement to isolated spaces; inability to screen clients or safely negotiate terms of transactions; and inability to access police protection.

The harms identified in the Krusi et al. report mirror findings from Sweden and other countries that have instituted a ban on the purchase of sexual services.

Mórríghain wrote:

susan davis wrote:

why, because you can't imagine a world where sex workers would be respected members of society? valued even? i feel sorry for you to have such narrow vision... And so on.

Susan, who was this post directed at?

Pondering, no doubt.

susan davis wrote:

you can't imagine a world without stigma against sex workers because your own opinion of us is so biased.

yup, just the kind of person i want speaking on behalf of sex workers....on behalf of my community.

interesting that you can see this bias as it applies to the feminist forum but not as it applies to sex workers rights. 

i wonder if i told you to "back off" and wasn't nice about it....would you?

Yes, if it is in an area intended for people who support prostitution I would back off. 

I never speak on behalf of sex-workers. I speak solely on my own behalf based on my experiences as a woman and the experiences of women I know. 

There is another distinction.  You are not born a sex worker.  It is something you do not something you are. You frame it as a job or profession. As such it is not immune from criticism.  A lot of oil workers are going to be out of very well-paying irreplaceable jobs because pipelines are being stopped. We are stopping pipelines for the greater good.

To some, hunters are not respected, others don't respect CEOs, or police, etc.  I have and always will have respect for women who are sex workers, just not the work. Sometimes the language around sex work insinuates that it is like sexual orientation, or race, or sex, or age, but it is none of those things.  No woman is born a sex worker. If she is being coerced in some way it is wrong, if she is choosing it as a job it's as open to criticism as any other.

 My opinion is not rooted in external evaluation of sex work as a form of labour. My opinion is rooted in the way I experience sex and the way I perceive other women to experience sex as well as how prostitution affects women as a class, how our sexuality is conceptualized and the recognition of our humanity. 

People have a variable tolerance for the invasion of their non-sexual personal space, that is, some are super affectionate while others prefer a bit of physical distance feeling smothered when people are too close.  It's on a continuum.   

Reaction to undesired sex is probably on some sort of similar continuum with some women far more affected than others, either due to the temperament they were born with or due to personal life experience. Sexual abuse seems to increase  acceptance of, or at least tolerance to prostitution. When women are forced into prostitution they are "broken in" fast so they will be resigned to their fate and not resist the men that will follow. We know that people who are raped, both male and female, feel betrayed by their bodies for reacting sexually leading to self-disgust.

When I read this from a person who chooses to be a sex worker and supports it:

 Audacia Ray and Michelle Tea have written about the feelings of self-betrayal, horror, and general displeasure that can accompany orgasming with a client; I’ve been right there with them. I’ve mostly gotten over revulsion towards my own body’s responses, probably because I’m better at controlling those responses now.

<http://titsandsass.com/getting-away-with-hating-it-consent-in-the-context-of-sex-work/>

I am reading a description of paid rape. As a woman I simply can't interpret that as anything else. I have a visceral reaction, I have knowledge of being entered, I have knowledge of being entered against my will.  Think of the word this willing woman used, revulsion (a sense of disgust and loathing) towards her body. This is why rape is worse than a broken leg even when it leaves no physical trace. Think of what women do after they are raped, bathe, shower, scrub, but you can't wash it off. It's a part of you and always will be, even if you get over it. Sex will always have the potential to trigger memories.

Those are three pro sex-work advocates all of whom have experienced self-revulsion.

That a woman is willing to endure it for the money doesn't make it not rape. Money is acting as a tool of coercion. All workers are exploited you say, but not like that.  I accept that this reaction is on a continuum, that some women don't experience prostitution that way; that some feel like sex therapists and healers, or just simply don't mind that much, or even enjoy it. Even if that is true I don't believe that is the experience most women discover after entering prostitution.

 You say, "Well so what?" they are still more than willing, they seek out customers, it's what they want to do. If they are willing to endure, who are you to interfere?

That is when we get into political theory.  I believe that women are an oppressed class.  Minimal government involvement works out well for the people who already have power, not so much for people who don’t.

Quote:

Human Dignity Legal Definition:

An individual or group's sense of self-respect and self-worth, physical and psychological integrity and empowerment.

<http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/H/HumanDignity.aspx>  

57% of Vancouver's DTES street workers are indigenous. Their continued presence perpetuates colonialism, it damages them personally and it damages indigenous peoples by perpetuating ugly stereotypes and framing indigenous women as "less than". Indigenous girls are fed into the system.  It undermines the group's (indigenous people) sense of self-respect and self-worth. It shames them to see FN women over-represented on the streets. It threatens their physical and psychological integrity and empowerment. It robs them of human dignity.

If you can see that the argument applies to indigenous peoples then you must be able to extend that logic to women as a class as we are even more radically over-represented.

I believe that the "revulsion" reaction is the most common and that women do learn to "get over it" unless they already "got over it" by being sexually abused young.  I recognize reactions are on a continuum so maybe there are quite a lot of women who are perfectly fine with it. I don't believe that is the norm. I believe  legitimizing prostitution as an industry will lead to far more young women willingly subjecting themselves to it before they have a chance to develop their own sexuality, and without understanding what the experience will actually do to them, even with "nice" johns.

I believe it will lead to more young women experiencing at best lower level physical and physiological abuse visited on them by johns. There are a lot of men out there who want to hurt women. Hiring one is a really easy way to gain access.  There is no way to make women not vulnerable to them.  Predators will always target prostitutes which is confirmed by the need for panic buttons within reach. It is inherently exploitative and cannot be made as safe as other forms of employment.

Sorry Unionist, you are right. I suppose it is partially because the parties aren't saying anything. 

I now think the Libs and NDP will vote against the Bill based on the fact that it wasn't put before the Supreme Court and studies and legal opinions weren't released. 

They can do that because they know the Bill will pass anyway due to Harper's Majority. 

Once it passes they will say the only thing to do is to let it work it's way through the courts. 

They will never say what they would do differently. Their platforms will contain no mention of it. Once elected, they will say leave it to the courts or change the soliciting where minors could reasonably be clause. 

If either party supported decriminalization or legalization they would be saying so by now. It's actually quite popular with Canadians so no reason to keep it under wraps. 

vincentL311 wrote:

My gut feeling is that if the Liberals or NDP had been in power now, we would have had some sort of a hybrid of the New Zealand and Swedish models; criminal law would have been used to go after trafficking, women co-erced into prostitution, street prostitution and pimping. However, independent sex workers who worked discreetly indoors and their clients would have been de-criminalized. Brothels or red light districts might not have been allowed but massage parlours would have been continued to be allowed to operate. 

Independent sex workers and their clients are mostly going to be mostly left alone even in the new regime as cost of going after all of them is prohibitive. But their might be a few high profile stings to make examples.

And my opinion is similar, but a bit different:  I think that neither of them would have presented new legislation.  If they had been pushed for something by the fundamentalist feminists coalitions, they would hopefully have had someone (Libby Davies?) speak up and point out that all of the things you list there are already well served by current laws.    We would have seen the street beat stop harrassing clients of streetworkers.   And we would see what we are most definitely already seeing, that police refocus their attention towards those things that you listed.   There was a gang in Toronto, 8 people arrested, who must have been set up prior to Dec 2013, but it isn't until now that TPD seem to be able to get their act together to find them and charge them and get real victims out of being exploited and real criminals charged.   

What I don't think would have happened was regulation with complete decrim.  (personally I am not sure what else needs to be decriminalized among the existing laws and i think any govt would also have a hard time choosing amongst laws dealing with exploitation, coercian, and procuring.   Unless maybe to define all of those things to refer only to exploitation, and to exempt something like licensed business owners?    I'd like to see them come up with regulations, and OHS policies, but I really doubt they'd open up that can of worms.     I notice that not one of them ever really discuss anything other than the vague reference to decrim, 'like in NZ", with no real details as to what they think that means.      

The Conservatives would take it all the way to the Supreme Court if the law was struck down by lower courts, if they were in power. That is pretty clear from the Beford case. The plaintiffs may or may not appeal if they lost in the lower courts, if it did seem likely that the higher courts would also uphold the bill. 

I guess the interesting scenario would be if C-36 was struck down in a couple of years by an Appeals court in some province and the Liberals or NDP were in power; would they appeal to the Supreme Court, bring new legislation, or maybe even do nothing?

I also think it possible that if C-36 was upheld in the courts, the Liberals and NDP would accept it as the new Status quo

Gustave wrote:

Well that’s pretty much how it works now, how it’s been working, except for some episodes of zealous combatting, for ever and how it will continue to work. This is basically the true abolitionist model that could have been modernized. However, the Swedish model, based of gender theory, is radically opposed to abolitionism and harm reduction.

The Swedish model is the primary abolitionist model. Harm reduction and abolitionism are not mutually exclusive approaches. I don't consider the commercialization and institutionalization of prostitution to be "harm reduction" because it doesn't reduce the harms. 

I am not quoting, so I could be mistaken, but I do believe that fortunate has agreed that decriminalization did not reduce violence in NZ nor did it reduce street work. In my opinion those are the reasons that the public supports industrialization. If they were aware of this information we would see support drop like a stone. 

fortunate wrote:

Gustave, i kind of agree the cost of arresting clients of indoor workers would be prohibitive, just based on the amount of time and effort goes into these things now.  A massage parlour is easy, you go in after you've been in earlier to confirm sexual services are available, then you go back in and arrest anyone in there.   With private places, such as the illegal brothels in houses or apartments, with multiple people from out of the country, it apparently takes them 2 or 3 months to figure out what is going on  before they charge in and arrest everyone in there.   I can't see them doing all that to get one guy seeing one escort.   

It is ofcourse ridiculous that they would do a 3 month long investigation in order to arrest one guy seeing one escort. But with ban on communication for prostitution, a sting would be pretty easy to set up, place an add online and arrest anybody who responds to the add. You dont even need the client to show up with the intention of proceding with the act.

But clients who stick to seeing providers they know well are unlikely in the extreme to get charged.