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

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/was-this-the-most-offensive-qu...

The Tories are insane, who asks a question like that to a victim of gangrape?

Interesting, today France has decided against criminalization of clients, even tho they have been used up as an example of a country going to use the Nordic model.     

re: Trudeau commenting about viewing prostitution as violence against women, i don't see any point in continuing to belabour that quote.  He is most certainly not saying that now, and it is most certainly not worth bringing up time and again.   http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2014/06/20140618-073130.html

 I think it is very clear that both the NDP and the Liberals are going with the leave the legislation alone, and allow the 3 laws the SCC overturned to expire, so that sex workers, indoors and outdoors, can start to work under the conditions the SCC determined would be safer and more logical.    

"what" are prostitutes....? I... am a prostitute and a PERSON...i am not a "what".... an i run ads in the paper for 28 years.....who are you to tell me where i can run an ad? how dare you refer to us as "what"...who the hell are you to censor our ability to reach our clients...?

the ads are generally tasteful with no genitals being shown... so what's your issue with it? victoria secrets ads are more racey....

good fricken god

montrealer58 wrote:

We need to go after the exploiters, and we need a more sophisticated approach than the Conservatives are offering. If they actually went after the sexual exploiters, they could throw a book of charges at them under current law.

Well, we can at least agree on this point:  the current laws that are in place now, without C36, are sufficient to actually charge real exploiters and throw a long list of charges at them.  I've already posted some examples of police in Toronto doing just that, just last month in fact.     We may have different ideas about what is actually happening, but i can agree that the solution is not in C36 or similar legislation, and it appears that is your opinion as well.

Unionist wrote:

fortunate wrote:

 I think it is very clear that both the NDP and the Liberals are going with the leave the legislation alone, and allow the 3 laws the SCC overturned to expire, so that sex workers, indoors and outdoors, can start to work under the conditions the SCC determined would be safer and more logical.    

Great strategy - except for the tiny point that Bill C-36 will be adopted long before December. So what exactly are you saying? That conditions will be safer under criminalized sex work than they were when sex work was legal? Or that maybe, someday, the SCC might strike down some parts of C-36 (though I have my doubts), and then another year for, what, some other party to re-legislate (though no party has had the nerve to come forward in favour of decriminalization yet)?

I need elaboration, please.

 

I thought i was clear?   There would be no C36 if the NDP or Liberals were in charge of this whole fiasco, they would simply not come up with new legislation basically because in order to comply with the wishes of the SCC, the laws that were overturned were meant to be overturned, not replaced with new laws trying to do the exact same things.  What is the point of new legislation, when there were years of challenges, and the SCC ended up overturning those laws.  And overturning them doesn't affect the majority of the prostitution laws, regarding the serious issues that may occur within it.    So my point, and the legal pundits, and the speakers and the lawyers who signed the letter sent out yesterday and on and on, is basically, in Dec 2013, it won't be broken, and there is no need to fix it.    

And you can see this in the questions posed by Boivin and Peclet (sp?)  when directing questions to the pro C36 asking in what way is this bill going to do what they claim it will do.     And in what way are the laws already on the books not already doing what they claim C36 is needed for.    

Quotes

NDP Ève Péclet: ‘France’s decision to remove criminalizing buyers: The $ was diverted to study actual pimping & trafficking’

Boivin to Cassells: ‘enjoy the preamble b/c when C36 is adopted it won’t be part of the criminal section’

NDP Pierre Jacob: ‘has the govt held sufficient consultation; are 4 days of hearings enough to study this bill adequately?’

Péclet: ‘the Criminal Code covers trafficking. How does C36 improve this legislation ALREADY in place?

NDP Péclet: ‘so, $200K per year per province: talk about a drop in the bucket. It’s like a slap in the face’

@FBoivinNPD asks MacKay why he didn't just make prostitution illegal because he clearly has a moral stance against it.

I won't post the crazy things the proC36 people claim, nor the proC36 committee members other than the one below.  

Dechert: ‘other innocent bystanders may get mugged’ in an area near prostitution’    

???  Aren't we talking about sex work?  Why is sex work now being conflated with general aggressive behaviour and muggings?   Are the potential clients of the sex workers going to mug innocent bystanders, take their money, in order to spend time with that sex worker??     Someone explain this to me lol

organized crime is not rampant in sex work....AND.....advertising venues ARE conscious of who is running the ads. we are required to provide ID and business owners are required to present business licenses which in turn screen for criminal records and/or attachments vis the licensing process....

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Fred Hahn: [url=http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/07/09/fred-hahn-sex-workers-des... workers deserve the same protections as all other workers[/url]

CUPE Ontario has always fought for workers’ rights in the workplace and in our communities. Trade unions must support the health and safety of everyone, especially those working in precarious industries. We therefore stand in solidarity with sex workers and all organizations that are committed to defeating this regressive and dangerous legislation. We call on the federal government to reject Bill C-36, and implement a policy of full decriminalization of all forms of sex work.

Bravo, Fred!

I am always surprised the unions don't make more of a stand for workers rights for sex workers.  A large number of people work in massage parlours and with escort agencies, as well there are dancers in the clubs.   There is a need for adult entertainment advocates for safer and fair working conditions.   A lot of the employers try to side step their responsibiltiy as employers by making entertainers contract workers, who end up paying fees to work or get fines or deductions, and there  is nothing regulating what those fees are or can be, and no way to even set up group health or dental in some places.   

Here is the news story regarding France.  Keeping in mind even today people were bringing up France as a great example of enacting the Swedish model of legislation in their presentations to defend the defense of C36

http://www.thelocal.fr/20140709/prostitution-france-law-clients-prostitutes-sex-workers

A landmark bill in France that would see clients of prostitutes hit with fines of up to €1,500 may never see the light of day after senators voted to scrap the legislation this week. Lawmakers claimed the example set in Sweden proves it would not work.

The plan to target clients of sex workers was the flagship proposal of a bill aimed at battling prostitution that was given the green light by National Assembly in December last year.

But this week a senate committee threw a spanner in the works of the government’s controversial bill by removing the key clause about hitting clients with €1,500 fines if they are caught.

Senator Esther Benbassa cited the bad example, she claimed had been, set in Sweden where clients have been targeted since 1999. Many argue it has failed to reduce prostitution and simply made life more dangerous for sex workers.

“We have highlighted the danger for prostitutes that penalisation would force prostitutes into hiding and see the more stranger clients imposing their desires,” Benbassa said.

“The example set in Sweden shows this does not work,” she added. Benbassa’s argument was the same one put forward for sex worker groups last year, who argued their lives would become more dangerous if police began fining their clients as they would be forced to work in more remote areas.

 

 

Here is another interesting tweet thing  https://twitter.com/AntoniaZ/status/486609022384996352

And I am sure many were moved by Bridget's story of sex slavery, and desire to help all the 'prostituted'?   

Here is what she thinks of and talks to sex workers, one who asked why she was being tweeted abolitionist stuff, and said 'no thanks' to it, these do not tweet back to her own account, i don't think 

https://twitter.com/BridgetST101/with_replies

figured that your are a prostitute! Call us when your done been used#BillC-36

is that all your worth $300 I so pity you!

I an't treating g you in any way wrong I'm just calling you out on your lies!

I have never called you a victim!

@Kwetoday Save crocodile tears. Wa wa wa. Good derail from someone with no substance and couldn't answer questions

Jun 18  @meggiewalk don't worry the pros are crying!

 

 

 

 

fortunate wrote:

 Interesting, today France has decided against criminalization of clients, even tho they have been used up as an example of a country going to use the Nordic model.

It was a senate committee. The senate could overrule it later. I doubt very much that they will however because, FINALLY, they listened to the right people, the only ones that matter in prostitution laws: police and lawyers. Of course the sex workers are the first concerned. But we all know what they want: no criminal records, safe work conditions, protection by the law and respect and help from the police.

 I think there was a breaking point in the senate committee proceedings, the hearing of Robert Badinter, famous for his law abolishing death penalty in France in 1981. He succeeded to put into 5 words the problem of the proposed legislation in France: it misses the target (“elle se trompe de cible”). They’re after human trafficking but they target the johns. He also alluded to a European Court of Human Rights  decision that was in contradiction with the interpretation made of the 1949 human trafficking convention, the one that begins with this famous passage:

"Whereas prostitution and the accompanying evil of the traffic in persons for the purpose of prostitution are incompatible with the dignity and worth of the human person and endanger the welfare of the individual, the family and the community"

 The ECHR said this does not apply to prostitution out of free will.

Secondly, they listened to the police. If you want us to go after the johns you’ll have to provide the resources. Otherwise, you’re asking us to take away resources allocated to fight human trafficking to go after johns. And of course additional resources would be better used furthering ours investigations in human trafficking.

Norway may also reconsider it’s law next fall. 

On the Justice Committee hearings, I think we have a problem with a bill when the York chief of police is unable to explain how this law will permit him to do a better job. I think this guy is not at all representative of police services around the country. They don’t need new laws, they did not ask for new laws.

Casey and Boivin are doing a great job.

Atchison vs Smith: I had the vision of Bill Nye doing his best not to knock his head with his hand when debating a creationist.

@ Gustave.    Yesterday the fallout of Atchison's presentation is a slanderous attack by the abolitionists via tweeting, as well as putting up a hasty wordpress blog, literally yesterday.    Why do abolitionists persist in trying to drown out real research?  Disagree if they wish with the idea of a survey of clients, but now they try to discredit the presenter. Who was in fact a grad student, and not necessarily the creator of the project.  There are others, including his professor, who, as it happens, is not a young white man.   

The levels to which these people stoop is shocking.    There are reports (visit kwetoday link above) of SCC antiC36 presenters who are or were sex workers being cornered and harassed by proC36 presenters.    Having seen Pellier's tweets, i completely believe these reports.   Those women can be intimidating, if you found yourself alone in the bathroom with one of them.   

And as well, love Peclet.  She brought up the 'what's wrong with the existing laws against trafficking that we have now' question.    Does anyone have an answer, other than the antiC36 presenters who say "nothing".      Then Dechert wastes everyone's time (i think it was him) rambling on and on about the trafficking charges stats, being 165 or so, which i think he said was over TEN  years.   And then goes on to talk about how 'many' asian sex workers are trafficking into the country.  Well, the #s don't add up, if it was that many why only 165 over 10 years.  ALL sex workers advertise, it would be fairly impossible to not be able to contact an advertiser, knock on their door, be police and ask them for ID, and offer help.   Law enforcement in Toronto do this ALL the time.  That is why they seem to be the only ones who are laying charges?    Or is it, as Victori'as PEERs point out, that they just aren't there to find?     It had been 7 years approx since anyone was charged with trafficking in Victoria, which is when Dechert went on his rampage to try to prove her wrong.     See look, there are oodles of victims, why we found 5 in all of canada just last year alone!!    

Anyways, now and then someone wants to tell us that ALL the FN groups are pro C36, so here today we had a speaker, Christa Big Canoe, to refute that claim.  I wonder if we'll see a blog site created to try to discredit her testimony, or if they will just concentrate on the speaker chu for the UN HIV organization and the lawyer guy.  

https://twitter.com/ALST_Advocacy

criminal law should not be a mechanism to provide more services to vulnerable people"

I'm seeing alot of reference to Stella Marr who was apparently a very vocal prohibitionist  on tweets today:  http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/tangled-web/

reminds me of the information that came out about Somaly Mam, the movie Eden, and Rachel Moran in the past year or so.  All frauds.  

And on a lighter note:  http://memegenerator.net/Dechert-Splains/images/new

And here is a quote from someone who helped draft and work on the Swedish law and policy:

However, as one of the people who helped Sweden craft that policy, Ekberg told MPs on the Justice committee that the Harper government’s current policy direction comes up short against the Swedish model.

In fact, Ekberg said she finds the government’s position “troubling” because there has been so much evidence to the contrary from academics, researchers, those being trafficked, and some provinces.

“Not only are they discriminatory but they are contrary to the human rights obligations that Canada has signed on to.”

Ekberg also took aim at the long-term goal of the government with the bill: eliminating prostitution all together.

“In 16 years that we have been doing this (in Sweden), we will not be able to eliminate prostitution and trafficking completely.”

 

 

Pondering wrote:

The reason trafficking is low is because prostitution has been virtually if not actually illegal for decades. Even so the massage parlours have slowly spread. I think Bill C 36 will be much easier to enforce and will serve as a detterent. 

In the meantime all testimony seems to be against the clause that criminalized prostitutes in areas where minors could be expected to be present. I hope that means it will be dropped entirely or at least severely curtailed. 

 

Are you talking about the stats for Canada?  Because prostitution has not been illegal ever.   I don't like misrepresentation of facts, there is no need for it.    Reality is interesting enough.  As the link i just posted will attest, the anti human trafficking legitimate organizations say that organizations need to be 'humble and honest'

Interesting article in the National Post. As Peter McKay may have inadvertantly let slip the Goverment appears to basing its defence of the new bill based on Section 1 of the Charter when he talks about the Oakes test, which would mean that they are aware that this bill infringes on atleast one Charter right.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/07/07/john-ivison-mackays-weak-...

This is the link to the hearing itself; the key part is the exchange between Craig Scott and McKay at around the 55th min.

http://www.cpac.ca/en/programs/in-committee-house-of-commons/episodes/33...

For those who are unaware, this is what the Oakes test outlines when talking about a reason to limit a Charter Right

1. There must be a pressing and substantial objective
2. The means must be proportional
   1. The means must be rationally connected to the objective
   2. There must be minimal impairment of rights
   3. There must be proportionality between the infringement and objective

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_One_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Righ...

When a person has been dominated for so long, they coud start to think it is part of their fundamental nature. They think that their situation in life is 'normal', when there is no 'normal'. In this way, the abused become defenders of the rights of the abusers.

The issue which has been sidestepped again is the preponderance of underaged women in the prostitution trade, and how pimps prey on runaways (many of which had bad experiences at home). Said teens could have been primed for domination by the criminals having been dominated at home.

Whatever the politicians do, we as people need might set up an 'underground railroad' for enslaved teenagers and other women in the sex trade. This can involve NGOs, churches, schools, group homes, community centres, taxi companies, and individuals. Phone numbers, internet sites, and safe houses of those who are trusted. We seem to be able to raise money for other causes. What about our own kids?

Following the testimony, I have to conclude the government's bill is a heavy-handed approach which will likely drive activity underground. The testimony of those in sexual slavery is however going to provide the political will and outcry to enact it. Like the revelations in the UK, abuse of children is reaching the headlines here.

Personally, I would like it if prostitution stopped today, but it is not going to happen. Although the legal policy in Sweden has not worked, there has been a cultural change. Girls there will not go out with boys who they know have looked at pornography.

That's a point I've been making since the bill came out: although the changes in the legislative objectives might arguably make it harder to challenge C-36 on grounds of gross disproportionality (I still think it's vulnerable on that ground, though), C-36 is arguably more vulnerable on grounds of arbitrariness than the laws that have been struck down in Bedford.

I asked a Swedish friend just now whether that was actually true, and he said he'd never met a woman who wouldn't date someone who looked at porn, and that, in fact, a group of his friends (including women) used to have "porn Tuesdays" as a casual get-together. So I'm relieved to hear Sweden hasn't turned into Oklahoma quite yet.

montrealer58 wrote:

Whatever the politicians do, we as people need might set up an 'underground railroad' for enslaved teenagers and other women in the sex trade. This can involve NGOs, churches, schools, group homes, community centres, taxi companies, and individuals. Phone numbers, internet sites, and safe houses of those who are trusted. We seem to be able to raise money for other causes. What about our own kids?

There is such an underground railroad. How it goes depends exclusively on being able to reach. The world over, the only organisations able to reach elsewhere then the streets are run by sex workers. For one and one only reason: sex workers talk to pears, not rescuers. That's why health agencies fund those organisations. The others are UNABLE, to reach sex workers. They are turned away.

montrealer58 wrote:

Although the legal policy in Sweden has not worked, there has been a cultural change.

I doubt very much that cultural changes of that nature happen in such a short period of time. Equality of women is among the most acheived both in Sweden and Canada. Also prostitution is a very marginal activity in both countries. The demand dropped in the sixtees and seventies, driving the prices down. That, in turn, made this market less attractive for providers.

The cultural change you're talking about, I imagine, is gender representations. But that's goes way before 1999, the year Sweden started to criminalize the clients. Less then 5% of men partake in it, often vary rarely. Maybe there is an increase in the number of Sweds who have a bad opinion of the 5%. Then it may be a cultural change, but insignificant if you ask me. Polls also show the Sweds have a worst opinion of sex workers themselves, to the point that more than 60% think Sweden should criminalize the sale of sex, a blatant proof of the failure of the prohibitionist ideologues to convince people that sex workers are victims. Anyhow, even if they succeded in imposing this view, I would not consider it to be a significant cultural change... nor necessarily a positive one. We are talking here about opinions about those who partake in the activity. Most peple don't.

pondering, as usual you contradict yourself, and i am returning to the place i was before of not responding to you.  

This book should be required reading:   http://www.ubcpress.ca/search/title_book.asp?BookID=299173904

A new rabble article   [url]http://rabble.ca/news/2014/07/all-sex-workers-will-be-harmed-bill-c-36-y...

More in the link, breaking down a number of issues. 

Quote:

On June 4, 2014, Justice Minister Peter MacKay introduced Bill C-36, The Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act. If passed in its current form, the Bill will criminalize the purchase of sexual services, advertising sexual services, communicating for the purposes of prostitution if youth are in the vicinity and most third party managerial relationships. This Bill was the government's response to the 2013 Supreme Court Canada (AG) v. Bedford decision, which emphasized that the health and safety of sex workers must be a priority in laws and policies governing sex work.

Considering the consequences of the proposed legislation on sex workers' lives, relationships and labour arrangements, people who are currently working in various sex sectors should have been prioritized in the policy development process. Meaningful consultation would have seen many, many more sex workers at the policy table. Such engagement with a diverse range of sex workers could have led to draft legislation that truly responds to their health and safety concerns, which were the issues at the heart of the Supreme Court ruling in Bedford.

Instead, Bill C-36 disregards sex workers' lived experiences, social science evidence and the Supreme Court ruling. Indeed, the proposed laws will continue to violate sex workers' human and labour rights, and will undoubtedly contribute to heightened violence, stigma and discrimination.  That said, different groups of sex workers will be differently impacted if the proposed Bill comes to pass. Below we outline some of the negative legislative implications and explain how sex workers can instead benefit from labour rights and protections.

fortunate wrote:

pondering, as usual you contradict yourself, and i am returning to the place i was before of not responding to you.  

This book should be required reading:   http://www.ubcpress.ca/search/title_book.asp?BookID=299173904

A new rabble article   [url]http://rabble.ca/news/2014/07/all-sex-workers-will-be-harmed-bill-c-36-y...

I don't know how you think I contradict myself.  The government cannot both seek to end prostitution and facilitate it as a legal industry. Any laws intended to prevent prostitution will by necessity make it more difficult to do. That's the point. 

The only possible change to Bill C 36 is to the clause that criminalizes prostitutes soliciting in areas where minors would be expected to be present. It has pretty much been unanimously condemned but I don't think it will be eliminated. I think the language will be tightened up. The Bill will be passed and we will have a long excruciating wait as it winds its way through the courts. 

Gustave wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I don't know how you think I contradict myself.  The government cannot both seek to end prostitution and facilitate it as a legal industry. Any laws intended to prevent prostitution will by necessity make it more difficult to do. That's the point. 

Yep! A sound principal. We have our theories on prostitution. It's evil, just listen to the "survivors". So let's hurt the sex workers anyway we can until they submit.

That method of taking such control over people's life is pretty close to what others call human trafficking.

i think my main problem with pondering is she'll post something saying it is illegal, then when she is corrected she won't admit that it seems she is just trying to get people to think it is all illegal, oh, but you know i just meant that it was 'effectively' illegal.  

Well it most certainly isn't effective or ineffectively illegal.  It is perfectly possible to do sex work 100% legal, post an ad, go to the client's location, get there by yourself.    Everyone could see sex workers in their hotels or homes all the time.    you can't say something is illegal just because the convenient ways of operating that business have been taken away.   

Anyways, I will include a link here to Lowman's brief.  I see i missed a few posts, one of which seems to need some mythbusting, and there is no one quite like a person who actually studied this stuff to do that.     I would like to draw everyone's attention to the dissection of Joy Smiths socalled facts, and other interesting bits.    The title is a play on words of smiths' "tipping point' i suppose

http://184.70.147.70/lowman_prostitution/HTML/SCJHR/Tripping_Point_Lowman_Brief_to_the_SCJHR_on_Bill_C36.pdf

Bacchus wrote:

Im beginning to think someone should just kill Mulcair, Trudeau and mackay too and then maybe we can move on to get some progrssive principled leaders

 

 We have a Progressive Principled Leader in Mulcair. He's not perfect, but he did vote against bill c-36. He's shown his intergify time and again. And just because he doesn't adapt the policies of rabble rousers whole cloth doesn't mean he's not progressive. This is a more proper discussion for the Mulcair thread.

 @Pondering I don't think Baccus was serious in suggesting murder. If he was then I believe that is illegal and counts as a death threat. But I believe he was mostly kidding, but in order to make a point.

Gustave wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I don't know how you think I contradict myself.  The government cannot both seek to end prostitution and facilitate it as a legal industry. Any laws intended to prevent prostitution will by necessity make it more difficult to do. That's the point. 

Yep! A sound principal. We have our theories on prostitution. It's evil, just listen to the "survivors". So let's hurt the sex workers anyway we can until they submit.

Why did you put survivors in quotes?  Are you suggesting we are lying, or are you claiming that we don't exist?

I am insulted by your snide suggestion of hurting sex workers until they submit. Sex workers get raped and murdered every day until they submit but you think it's appropriate to use as a taunt. Didn't you say you are a john? Your attitude towards survivors doesn't surprise me at all. Apparently they aren't the kind of women you "respect". 

Gustave wrote:

 That method of taking such control over people's life is pretty close to what others call human trafficking.

Please do explain the similarity between outlawing an activity and human trafficking. Are you one of those people who think being a sex worker is like being gay or aboriginal, something a person is born being? It's a commercial activity, not a state of being. There is no similarity at all between human trafficking and Bill C 36. 

At this point the argument is moot. The Bill will be passed. Both the NDP and the Liberals are being evasive about whether or not they would criminalize johns. From that I believe that they will leave it up to the courts. As usual the lawyers representing challengers say that it will fail, and the lawyers representing supporters say that it will stand. The grand majority of pundits say it will fail so it will be interesting to see if they are right. I believe they are wrong. 

Although, to put it mildly, I don't share Brachina's enthusiasm for Mulcair (due to his Zionism, for one thing), I think we are better off without even jokey death threats, because it is hard to tell if someone is being facetious on the net.

I remember making one that I thought was clearly a joke, about gassing the Ontario pol who killed a bicycle messenger with his own car - I thought it was a clear "hang him from his own petard" joke, and it got removed. I loathe that pol, but I have zero desire to kill him. He should simply have done hard time and never have the right to drive again.

I have seen too much harm done to people I know (or have known, because they are now dead) who worked in the trade to be sanguine about it.