Legalized Prostitution

[ballz]

OK, OK.....I just can't resist riding the Tangential Roller Coaster one more time!!!

Making something illegal would logically make it less accessible, to the population at large, less the percentage who are willing to break the law and risk the consequences (whatever those may be).

No worries, I also can never resist a tangent ;D Perhaps it is logical to assume making something illegal makes it less accessible, but what I was getting at was that my experience (granted, is much less than someone who has been around since prohibition har har) as a minor was that illegal substances like marijuana/ecstacy/cocaine/etc all seemed more accessible than legal substances that were restricted (alcohol and cigarettes).

The position is not indefensible. It is based on the "the prostitute (read woman mostly) is the victim" and "The man is the criminal" theory of the sex trade.

I totally agree with you, however, that it is stupid. All too often society--through its elected officials--uses criminal legislation in an attempt to achieve a pollyanna world that doesn't and cannot exist. It happens more and more when the legislators are kowtowing to vocal and strident religious factions.

:cheers:

Well.... stupid or not... looks like that is the way we are headed :facepalm:

http://o.canada.com/news/national/new-federal-law-on-prostitution-coming-soon

Seems that the legislation will be some version of the Nordic model.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I wonder how our Supremes will take to making one 'partner' in a perfectly legal transaction an automatic criminal?

 

[The_Falcon]

I wonder how our Supremes will take to making one 'partner' in a perfectly legal transaction an automatic criminal?

Probably be right back at this point.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The Conservatives have, in the proposed new prostitution laws, decided to appeal, very directly, to part of their base. I note that the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada approves but my guess is that many others will not and, a couple of years from now, the Supremes will strike this law down, too.

But, the election is next year and this bit of legal rubbish should suffice to shore up the religious right's support until then.

 

[The Bread Guy]

The Conservatives have, in the proposed new prostitution laws, decided to appeal, very directly, to part of their base. I note that the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada approves but my guess is that many others will not

:nod:

a couple of years from now, the Supremes will strike this law down, too.

When The Supremes ask for this sort of thing, does it have to go all the way back up through the lower courts via challenges?  Or do they "check things over" after legislation is developed in response to a "Ottawa, change the law" ruling?

But, the election is next year and this bit of legal rubbish should suffice to shore up the religious right's support until then.

Also  :nod:

 

[Edward Campbell]

When The Supremes ask for this sort of thing, does it have to go all the way back up through the lower courts via challenges?  Or do they "check things over" after legislation is developed in response to a "Ottawa, change the law" ruling?

Maybe a lawyer can help us.

My understanding, and I'm not a lawyer, is that this law will need to be enforced by local police then challenged, on constitutional grounds, in a court, then that court's ruling, one way or the other, will have to be appealed a couple of times and this will probably have to happen in two or three provinces before the Supremes rule on it ... by which time the 2015 election is long over and this has been a wedge the CPC will have used to drive evangelical Christians away from the Liberals and NDP.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Maybe a lawyer can help us.

My understanding, and I'm not a lawyer, is that this law will need to be enforced by local police then challenged, on constitutional grounds, in a court, then that court's ruling, one way or the other, will have to be appealed a couple of times and this will probably have to happen in two or three provinces before the Supremes rule on it ... by which time the 2015 election is long over and this has been a wedge the CPC will have used to drive evangelical Christians away from the Liberals and NDP.

If this is the case, I think your initial "couple of years" estimate may be optimistic - but I still like your read of the "why it was done this way".

 

[GAP]

The whole issue is disingenious.....If you want to make prostitution illegal, do so, otherwise legalize it, tax it, put protections in place for the suppliers.

It's just hypocrisy to the nth degree......

 

[The_Falcon]

Well the government introduced it's bill, C-36. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/bill-c-36-do-you-think-the-sex-trade-should-be-legal-or-illegal-1.2665808

From the gist of it seems they are going with what was previously reported,  you can sell sex, but you can't buy it (interesting logic).  In addition it would now be illegal to advertise in print or online.  (Can't find the actually details yet from the Parliament website). 

I think this is doomed to fail, and will be challenged once again.

 

[Infanteer]

Can someone explain the logic of selling being legal, but buying illegal?  To me, it seems the government wants to maintain the criminality of prostitution but save police officers from having to arrest prostitutes.

 

[dapaterson]

Fortunately for Vic Toews, it will still be legal to have sex with your babysitter (as long as she's 18 or older, and you're paying for the babysitting, not for the sex).

 

[The_Falcon]

Can someone explain the logic of selling being legal, but buying illegal?  To me, it seems the government wants to maintain the criminality of prostitution but save police officers from having to arrest prostitutes.

Because ALL prostitutes/sex workers are victims, or so the new thinking goes.  Not a single person out there could possibly being doing this of their own free will.  :

 

[The Bread Guy]

Well the government introduced it's bill, C-36. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/bill-c-36-do-you-think-the-sex-trade-should-be-legal-or-illegal-1.2665808

Attached is the first version of the bill, and here's the page where you can keep track of where the bill's at.

it would now be illegal to advertise in print or online.

This stands out for me in the draft legislation:

“advertisement of sexual services” means any material—including a photographic, film, video, audio or other recording, made by any means, a visual representation or any written material—that is used to advertise sexual services

How about ads for "lonely?  looking for some company?" services?  "I'm advertising introduction and dating services, Your Honour - I have no control what consenting adults do once they're introduced."

I think this is doomed to fail, and will be challenged once again.

:nod:

Can someone explain the logic of selling being legal, but buying illegal?  To me, it seems the government wants to maintain the criminality of prostitution but save police officers from having to arrest prostitutes.

As to the "why", I'm liking this ....

The Conservatives have, in the proposed new prostitution laws, decided to appeal, very directly, to part of their base. I note that the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada approves but my guess is that many others will not and, a couple of years from now, the Supremes will strike this law down, too.

But, the election is next year and this bit of legal rubbish should suffice to shore up the religious right's support until then.

Because ALL prostitutes/sex workers are victims, or so the new thinking goes.  Not a single person out there could possibly being doing this of their own free will.  :

Yeah, some of THAT, too, but this government hasn't been visibly receptive to THESE "victims", so I kinda like ERC's explanation for the "why".

 

[George Wallace]

Just where does the definition of a "massage" begin and end?  :-\

 

[Edward Campbell]

Based upon what I've read and heard, the Supremes said:

    1. Prostitution exists.
   
    2. Prostitution is not illegal in Canada. (But did they say that it could be made illegal?)

    3. Some prostitutes are exploited but there are laws on the books to arrest and try those who abuse or traffic in women. Some prostitutes are not exploited.

    4. The web of laws that surrounded prostitution were unconstitutional and any new laws would have to be aimed at making it safer for women to practice their craft.

It seems to me that the new law ignores the Supremes' direction at point 4 and will be struck down again.

 

[quadrapiper]

Based upon what I've read and heard, the Supremes said:

    1. Prostitution exists.
   
    2. Prostitution is not illegal in Canada. (But did they say that it could be made illegal?)

    3. Some prostitutes are exploited but there are laws on the books to arrest and try those who abuse or traffic in women. Some prostitutes are not exploited.

    4. The web of laws that surrounded prostitution were unconstitutional and any new laws would have to be aimed at making it safer for women to practice their craft.

It seems to me that the new law ignores the Supremes' direction at point 4 and will be struck down again.

Slightly off-topic, but it seems terribly inefficient and wasteful that there isn't a mechanism to run proposed legislation, created in response to a Supreme Court ruling, past the court before it's introduced, rather than spending years on running challenges all the way up the legal ladder.

 

[dapaterson]

Slightly off-topic, but it seems terribly inefficient and wasteful that there isn't a mechanism to run proposed legislation, created in response to a Supreme Court ruling, past the court before it's introduced, rather than spending years on running challenges all the way up the legal ladder.

It can be done, but in this case it would get an answer they don't want.  As ERC pointed out, this is red meat to a part of the base.  And if it does get turfed by the Supremes in 2019 or so, well, that's red meat to another part of the base.

 

[The_Falcon]

As I recall, the Federal Government can petition the Supreme Court directly to provide guidance on proposed legislation (IE like they did with the Clarity act, and more recently asking their opinion about making changes to the Senate).  However I doubt they will be very inclined to get the court's blessing on this legislation, and will instead pass it into law, and let the challengers have it, since by then it will be someone else's problem to deal with.

 

[GAP]

Just where does the definition of a "massage" begin and end?  :-\

"Jack" would know.......... ;D

 

[FJAG]

Maybe a lawyer can help us.

My understanding, and I'm not a lawyer, is that this law will need to be enforced by local police then challenged, on constitutional grounds, in a court, then that court's ruling, one way or the other, will have to be appealed a couple of times and this will probably have to happen in two or three provinces before the Supremes rule on it ... by which time the 2015 election is long over and this has been a wedge the CPC will have used to drive evangelical Christians away from the Liberals and NDP.

You're mostly correct.

The new bill is law that requires enforcement once passed by the legislature and given royal assent.

It does not need multiple challenges. Once a challenge to the law has been heard and gone through a provincial appeal then it may be appealed to the SCC who can pick up the case.

Confusion will result as the courts in individual provinces individually rule against the law's constitutionality as enforcement ought to fall aside province by province.

I've read over the new bill and IMHO it's a dog's breakfast that does nothing to resolve the SCC's concerns with the old legislation but just layers on a whole new grab bag of confusing and even more restrictive concepts. I thought this bull**** would stop once Toews was gone. I was obviously wrong.

:cheers: