Decision coming on March 26 from Ontario Court of Appeal

[Phaedrus 209521]

OOI, how much scope does the Crown have here to screw around and delay things? Once the appeals to the SC have been made, isn't it just a matter of them deciding whether they'll hear them, and if so, when?

 

And on a different note, how *fast* could this happen? I'm wondering if it'd be possible for Harper to get this through and done soon enough that it's off the general public's radar by the time the next election rolls around...

[drlove 37202]

Hmmm... the fact that it's shaping up to be a potential election issue should be enough to keep them in line. I feel that the Supreme Court will uphold the previous rulings. It's great for the other provinces since the decision is binding country wide. Furthermore, it is my view that the Conservatives will be extremely limited in trying to table any right wing legislation around the issue of prostitution when all is said and done. So much for Joy Smith...

[SamanthaEvans 166766]

I think it's too early to say whether Harper will get another majority. He may have stolen the one he has. We'll see how the Elections Canada probe into the robo-calls turns out. At the moment, it doesn't look good for Harper HQ. There's plenty of disgruntlement, too, with Harper's cavalier disregard for telling the truth, not to mention his inability to appreciate that $25 billion is a heck of a lot more than $14 billion.

 

There is no popular interest in harsher prostitution laws. None. There is enormous public concern about street sex workers and how badly they've been treated for decades, and not just in Vancouver. No one who seriously engages with the issues imagines for a heartbeat that harsher laws will solve the problems, real as well as imagined, about street prostitution.

 

There will be people who want to invoke the specter of busy brothels popping up across the street from elementary schools, but I think that sex workers' organizations will have a lot of impact on what happens municipally. Independent companions are difficult to govern, adept at being virtually invisible and we generally ignore laws that aren't good for us. There are also a heck of a lot more of us, everywhere, than anyone outside the industry imagines--way too many for there to be any reasonable hope of licensing all of us or whatever else some folks may think is an appropriate way to control us. We're not easily controlled.

 

If the Harper government wants to do something to show that they're still tough on prostitution, they'll probably play with the human trafficking laws. No one is in favour of trafficking. I don't think that our laws about trafficking are a problem, though. The real issue is that they aren't being enforced.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

On 22 May, the stay on the "Living on the Avails" decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal was extended. The stay will remain in effect until the Supreme Court decides whether it will grant leave to appeal in the Bedford v Canada case.

 

From the website of the Supreme Court:

 

Decision on the motion for a stay of execution, Ka, UPON APPLICATION by the Applicant, the Attorney General of Canada, for an interim order extending the 30-day stay of the decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario to read in words of limitation into s. 212(1)(j) of the Criminal Code;

 

AND FURTHER TO MY ORDER OF APRIL 25, 2012;

 

AND HAVING READ THE MATERIAL FILED;

 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT this motion is referred to the judges to whom the application for leave to appeal is submitted. The interim stay is extended until the panel decides the motion

 

Referred

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

The AG of Canada formally applied for leave to appeal, 25 May 2012.

[Capital Hunter 18263]

Very interesting thread and I thank you for the contributors to this thread. I have one unresolved question in my mind to which I couldn't find the answer by reading the thread and that is:

 

If SCC (in what was said in this thread in about 2-3 years) likely upholds the decision (as per legality of brothels and living off for body guards and drivers) can the Harper regime use its majority and overrule or overturn the SCC decision and legislate its own prostitution law which would be a total ban on prostitution itself even though it would be clearly against the SCC decision?

 

I am not asking whether they will do such thing or not (The answer to that would be pure speculation) what I am asking is whether they have the legislative power to do so if they wish?

[fortunateone 156618]

I am wondering if they really do have that power. If they did, wouldn't they have dealt with the issue by simply doing that in the first place. The idea of what I call the 4 Laws was an attempt to abolish prostitution, so wouldn't simply drafting a law that actually did that make more sense than the bawdy house, solicition and living off the avails laws?

 

The fact that in the 80's they came up with the nuisance laws (to reduce the street trade), implies that either it isn't something they can change or they really don't have any incentive to do that.

[Phaedrus 209521]

My understanding is that the current decisions in the Bedford case are based on the current law, which is that prostitution itself is legal, and that if this were to change then people involved wouldn't be able to challenge the laws around it in the way that they have. And so yes, if the Government loses in the Supreme Court, they --could-- make the whole thing irrelevant.

 

While I'm sure they'd like to, the question is: are they prepared to have that fight? Are they prepared to expend political capital on something that would undoubtedly be popular with their core electorate, but perhaps rather less so with the more centrist voters that any party needs to do well in elections?

 

We'll find out when the time comes, I guess.

[Capital Hunter 18263]

Thanks for the response which also makes a lot of sense. I agree the SCC decision will be based on the fact that prostitution is legal and sex workers should have the right to engage in the profession safely. If they change the law and make it illegal then this argument no longer holds.

 

As whether they would do so or not, at this stage is pure speculation and mine is that they most likely will if they are faced with legalized prostitution after SCC decision to please their core religious right voters. I am not sure they will lose many of the centrist support for doing so. In fact this regime does what it pleases without any concern for lack of public support. Remember the issue of raising the OAS from 65 to 67. Polls indicated that 74% of Canadians were against it but they did it anyways and they still stands around 34-36% in the polls as the party of choice!!!!.

 

The court challenge may proven to have been a mistake in the long run as we likely lose what we have now which is laws that makes prostitution itself legal though everything related to it is illegal but rarely enforced. There is also a trend in Western world (Scandinavia, France, UK....) to move towards banning prostitution altogether and Canada is part of Western world. As you said we will know when time comes however, I hope that time comes later rather than sooner!!.

[Guest s******ecan****]

Supreme court decisions are always limited in that they are the courts view of the particular law in question. Parliament is always free to write a new law that takes into account the SC decision. Depending on the scope of the SC decision however for political reasons Parliament may choose to forgo this or the SC decision may be written in such a way that Parliament has little room to write a new law that would have a reasonable chance of being upheld if challenged anew.

 

...and unique to Canada Parliament and Provincial legislatures can choose to invoke the "notwithstanding clause" which basically means they can ignore the SC decision. This however requires a certain legal standard and carries a high political price.

[SamanthaEvans 166766]

Because they have a majority, the Harper government can, and usually does, do what it wants to do. Theoretically, if they want to pass legislation making prostitution illegal they can do it. Whether there is anything to be gained by it is another matter.

 

The Canadian public isn't very interested in prostitution when it's discrete. Canadians are concerned about human trafficking and that seems to be the only area where there's interest in tightening rules and regulations. Exotic dancers, for example, are no longer able to get temporary visas to work in Canada and those who are here are not getting extensions.

 

Given the high profile and national interest in the recent Picton inquiry here in Vancouver, and the attention paid to the Ontario court rulings, I don't think it's in the government's interests to bring in harsher legislation. Such a thing won't put an end to prostitution--most of us who work independently are quite comfortable dealing with the legal considerations and would continue to work. (Indeed, to some extent, tighter laws make it easier to screen clients. Women working in the States often require and receive full identification disclosure from potential clients.) Conditions would become much more dangerous for women who work on the streets, increasing their risk of harm from clients and pimps.

 

While there may be interest on the government's part in making prostitution 100% illegal, there's very little interest on the part of the police or the courts, and that may be the biggest hurdle for the legislators. We have laws that aren't prosecuted because the authorities don't consider the problems to be worth their time if they're not actually harming anyone.

 

And, while the Harper government has decided to build a lot of prisons, despite our ever-dropping crime rate, I haven't heard of anyone suggesting that they should dramatically increase spending for police services.

[Capital Hunter 18263]

Very interesting debate!!. I do agree that there is little interest as far as public opinion is concerned on banning consensual prostitution. My concern however, is that this government pays little attention to public opinion as they have demonstrated in the past. I cannot envisage Bawdy houses opening up around the country (after SCC decision in 2-3 years) and a majority conservative government in power both in the same sentence. They will not allow that to happen or they will lose their core support (the religious right). Their mandate is to impose their moral standards upon the nation regardless of what the nation may think, if they have the legislative power to do so which from responses I received, I believe they do..

 

My hope is that, the decision day will be 2-3 years away from now which may be the last year of this regime. They may hold off a new law until after the next election and by then the Canadian public may have waken up and realized the high price they have paid (loss of democracy) and decline voting them into another majority which would make it hard for them to pass a new right wing prostitution law through the parliament with a minority.

[Phaedrus 209521]

Very interesting debate!!. I do agree that there is little interest as far as public opinion is concerned on banning consensual prostitution. My concern however, is that this government pays little attention to public opinion as they have demonstrated in the past.

 

I disagree here. I think the current government pays quite a lot of attention to public opinion... but that also involves not only looking at what people think, but how strongly they hold those opinions and whether doing something that people don't like is likely to cost them votes, or turn a stay-at-home slacker into a voter for the opposition. Another factor is how much of a fuss they think the opposition parties and advocacy groups are likely to kick up.

 

I also think that the electoral impact of a prostitution debate would uniquely hard to gauge. I don't know what proportion of guys actually visit SPs, but I'd bet quite a bit that nobody else does either, as it's not the sort of thing that people are going to be honest about even when talking anonymously to a pollster. But it --is-- the kind of thing that people may vote on in the privacy of the polling booth, although those whose votes were swung by the issue would probably find some other public justification for their change of heart. Is the government prepared to gamble on a debate where the electoral impact is that hard to estimate? I have no idea, but Harper has never struck me as the gambling type.

 

I cannot envisage Bawdy houses opening up around the country (after SCC decision in 2-3 years) and a majority conservative government in power both in the same sentence. They will not allow that to happen or they will lose their core support (the religious right).

 

I don't think it'll be an issue, to be honest. If the SCC does rule in their favor, they'd still be subject to things like local zoning regulations and business licenses. I'm sure that if bawdy houses did become technically legal, many councils would immediately introduce licensing requirements for them, and then proceed to hand out a grand total of zero. In the meantime, most SPs would carry on as they do now and LE would continue to ignore the issue unless there were complaints that forced their hand.

 

Their mandate is to impose their moral standards upon the nation regardless of what the nation may think, if they have the legislative power to do so which from responses I received, I believe they do..

 

Of course they do. That's one of the joys (or curses) of the parliamentary system: a party with a decent majority can do what the hell it likes. But any party that comes to power will probably want to stay there, which tends to act as a strong moderating influence.

[Athos 108589]

If the government were to move on trying to criminalize prostitution it would be interesting to see where the police forces would come down on the issue. I suspect, although perhaps not publicly, they'd be telling the gov't that they wouldn't even begin to try and enforce such a law beyond street solicitation and Hunan trafficking. In other words, the existing situation.