Groups refused standing at prostitution law July 3/09

[drlove 37202]

The application is not to legalize it but to decriminalize it...How do you think the government would address this if they were given the task to re-write the laws to make them safe and to make them fair. Would they take the time to legalize it and do all the homework or would they simply make it completely illegal like much of the USA?

 

Yes, you're correct; I meant to say decriminalization. Let's say as a for instance, that the court ruled in favour of abolishing the current laws. Thus, the court would be agreeing with the plaintiffs that the laws are unjust and do not promote safety in a work setting. How then can politicians move to make prostitution illegal? This would fly in the face of what the outcome of the trial was meant to change. By making prostitution illegal, it also makes prostitution that much more unsafe. In essence, it would completely ignore the spirit of the ruling itself. It's one step forward and two steps back - The laws are not being challenged to play into the hands of someone's political / moral agenda.

[mod 135639]

How then can politicians move to make prostitution illegal?

 

Laws are made and changed by passing bills in our house of commons. When Parliament draws up a bill it gets voted on and either passes or doesn't (This all takes a lot of time - but they can make a new law or change laws as long as the bills pass by a majority vote). It could be legal one day and illegal the next day and you can't really do anything about that but take it to court if you don't agree with it and let a judge decide if the government was out of line or not.

 

If the government makes a law that you do not agree with as you feel it takes rights and freedoms away from you unfairly you can take it to court.

 

If the judge agrees with you he/she can make a motion to remove the law. (obviously this would be appealed from these lower courts and eventually wind up in front of the supreme court of canada) all taking a lot more time... time time time time... and more time... nothing gets done quick in regards to any of this.

 

The laws are not being challenged to play into the hands of someone's political / moral agenda.

 

This is our concern, it's really rolling the dice. If they decriminalize it or legalize it the local municipalities will write by-laws (this will bring new license fee's zoning, etc...etc..) right now they can not do this. By-laws pertaining to "escorts" do not mention prostitution (as it is illegal for municipalities to charge a license fee for prostitution). The escort by-laws some cities have are bogus and used to harass the ladies or just make a easy buck from them. The cities gamble that the escorts are not organized enough (and educated enough) to actually take them to court... so far they are right as no one is challenging the laws in places like winnipeg and calgary.

 

Just think about that for a moment too.. what will making it legal do? I see MUCH Higher hourly rates, more competition as a lot more people will get involved in the business, really it could just expand so rapidly that it would collapse on itself. The ladies will have by-law licenses to pay for, they will all have to pay tax (they should not anyway but you will need to pay tax to them), they will need to pay for rent in properly zoned area's (you can bet that will be much more expensive), they will probably need to us specific words in advertising (making it much harder for you to all know what she is offering). etc... etc.. etc..

 

I would like to see the ladies more safe (I am sure we all agree to that) but I am just hopping it is all done in a way that does not cause a giant mess.

 

If they decriminalize it or completely legalize it the city by-laws can be brutal as the cities would not expect anyone to take them to court for making unfair by-laws... right not the "living off the avails" law and the "common bawdy house" laws makes it so the cities can not structure by-laws around this industry (it actually protects the ladies a great deal from the cities).

 

Not many people realize that if the laws change they are not going to like what happens.

 

I think if they decriminalize it or legalize it the cities will win (They could now make by-laws as it would be legal for them to get involved), the government will win (They will collect taxes as I am sure everyone would need to be legal business owners - legally the ladies can do this now and pay taxes but legalizing it or decriminalizing it will make the government look at making money from it MUCH closer), the brothel owners lucky enough to get licenses and zoning will win but it will be so restrictive that the ladies will not win. They may be safer (those lucky enough to work in a legal environment) but the city councils will probably interfere so much that the by-laws will make it even more restrictive and push even more people underground so if the cities are permitted to structure by-laws it will be a mess.

 

What they really need is a complete solution that rules out local zoning and license by-laws and makes it the same for everyone in any city. Set limits to what the cities can do for by-laws or they are going to have a bigger mess than they already have.

[fortunateone 156618]

I think the de-crim will directly and immediately affect some of the ways we conduct business. Although it will be possible for street workers to discuss rates and services in public, the city of Vancouver for example has anti-loitering type bylaws to address panhandlers. No reason why they can't use that to control street work to a manageable level.

 

The one most indys and mp workers are looking forward to is the bawdy house stuff, and also regarding living off the avails. Living off the avails means they can legally hire drivers and security, or just have someone else around when they do incalls. The bawdy house thing will address being able to legally work from home (one or two people, not a group of course). The folks in New Zealand decriminalized and their 5 year study after initiating it found no increase in overall numbers.

 

I was looking for the actual report, but maybe I will post it later. For now, below can give a quick break down of the laws that were removed in NZ, which seem exactly the same as the ones in Canada, and the outcome of removing them -- by which I mean, the new regulations that came about to address most of the concerns about decriminalization, and the problems most anti-prostitution lobbiests tend to go on about.

 

http://www.nzpc.org.nz/page.php?page_name=Law

[mod 135639]

A city by-law infraction (That is what we are talking about here with the pan Handling laws in Vancouver) it is the same as a municipal parking ticket.

 

It does not have any jail time or criminal record implications here in Canada if you get charged under the by-law. The most they can do is fine you and eventually send the collection agencies after you.

 

You can't be arrested for breaking a by-law (Police may threaten to arrest you as a scare tactic but they can not arrest you for a bylaw infraction)

 

 

• The municipal framework for bylaw enforcement is constructed anticipating that people will be compliant and that they have addresses and assets that are vulnerable to civil recovery processes.
   
  
  
• Municipalities lack the authority to create arrest provisions for repetition and continuation of offenses because they do not have the legislative authority as does the province to use criminal code summary conviction procedures by reference through the Offense Act.
  

We have silly laws like public mischief and disturbing the peace that you can be arrested for if you were to try to argue with the police officer but by-laws (especially if you are not working out of a actual location) are really just a slap in the hand and a parking ticket.

 

If the city has "Licensed" prostitution they can take your license away but if you don't have one all they can do if fine you. How many streetworkers do you know who would be concerned about a collection agency knocking on the door? Maybe a few would but those same people know they can make 1000 times more money then the fines will ever be!

 

I am not sure how the laws are in NewZeland with municipal laws but over hear in CANADA the by-laws are really a joke and when you remove the possibility of a criminal record or even a jail sentence for public solicitation and just let the cities deal with it than your just asking for problems.

 

If you remove the living off the avails law the street pimps will have a parade I think!

 

The Vancouver pan-handling by-law is a good example. I am glad you brought that up!

 

... what do they do when they catch a homeless guy pan-handling? Ever wonder?

 

Do they write him a ticket? They can... but what if he refuses to pay it? The answer is... Nothing.

 

If he doesn't pay it where do they send the notice and collection agencies?

 

This if a funny read that proves my points...

_______________________________________________________

Panhandling by-laws FAQ

 

Q: What if a person issued a ticket doesn?t pay it?

 

A person who is issued a violation ticket has 30 days to pay it, or take steps to dispute the ticket. If the person does not pay or dispute the ticket, they are deemed guilty and the fine amount becomes payable to the Crown. The person would then be subject to collection activity.

 

Q: Does collection activity mean if someone doesn?t pay a ticket for aggressive panhandling they?d lose their license?

 

No, If this type of fine went unpaid for an extended period of time it would be passed on to a collections agency to recover. We would not take any action.

 

Q: Can a person go to jail for not paying their ticket?

 

This ticket is not unlike a parking or speeding ticket. A person cannot go to jail in Canada for refusing to pay a ticket.

 

P.S. Here is the link to the site with all the info on this panhandling by-law

http://www.safestreetscoalition.com/

[fortunateone 156618]

The new zealand regulations cover a great deal of things, and their study has indicated that the free for all that was anticipated just doesn't happen. The fact is if you regulate the industry, as they have done, it means you regulate anyone who attempts to be "paid" by sex workers. They require a criminal check & pay for a license. If they don't have a license they can be charged. It is very simple, really. I don't see how this can possibly translate into pimp parades.

[mod 135639]

I don't really know how better I can explain this.

 

In Canada if they leave it up to the cities to regulate under the by-law act the people who work without a "license" would ONLY get a ticket for breaking a by-law (No criminal charge and no possible jail time - just a slap on the hand) and if they did not pay the fine they do not go to jail or get a criminal record they get a collection agency after them (by-laws in Canada do not have the ability to do either) in other words the pimps would have nothing to fear but the bill collectors (and that is if they can find out where the pimp lives - highly doubtful).

 

They have NOTHING to be afraid of in Canada if the law is decriminalized. Right now the living off the avails is pretty much the only thing the police have to charge pimps and bad agency owners with. They can get them on assault if the ladies will agree to testify or they witness it first hand but that is it.

 

If they "Legalize" it and include "jail" sentences for working without a licenses in the "some new federal regulations" (so they are not leaving it up to the municipalities to decide and can include actual criminal charges and jail terms) then it can be controlled - but no one is going to be scared of a by-law fine so decriminalization will now work in Canada - new structure is needed to FIX the broken laws to help protect the workers.

The current court case is trying to get it completely decriminalize the common bawdy house law (I am ok with that) but they are also trying to decriminalize the "living off the avails" law and I think this law just needs to be restructured to still make it illegal to pimp someone.

 

If they remove the living off the avails law without restructuring it this would make a FREE FOR ALL (Why I said the pimps would be on parade as nothing would be in place for them to be arrested for pimping any longer - you don't want that do you?).

 

I know you feel strongly about this but you need to know how our justice system works. It is very different than other countries and what works in one country does not necessarily work in another.

 

I would be interested to know what new zealand does if someone is caught working without a license? I think they are heavily regulated with criminal law (Jail terms and criminal code charges for breaking the regulatory laws)

 

Do you know if this is the case? Do they get a criminal charge? Jail time? Mandatory fines? If so it is "Legalized" with regulations in the law of how exactly it can be done safely and legally and who knows maybe our politicians will use that as a reference to re-write the laws (sounds like they should do that) but the courts can't do this for them... it would be up to our house of commons here in Canada.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

If they remove the living off the avails law without restructuring it this would make a FREE FOR ALL (Why I said the pimps would be on parade as nothing would be in place for them to be arrested for pimping any longer - you don't want that do you?) ....

 

I would be interested to know what new zealand does if someone is caught working without a license? I think they are heavily regulated with criminal law (Jail terms and criminal code charges for breaking the regulatory laws)

 

Do you know if this is the case? Do they get a criminal charge? Jail time? Mandatory fines? If so it is "Legalized" with regulations in the law of how exactly it can be done safely and legally and who knows maybe our politicians will use that as a reference to re-write the laws (sounds like they should do that) but the courts can't do this for them... it would be up to our house of commons here in Canada.

 

From New Zealand's Prostitution Reform Act 2003:

 

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2003/0028/latest/whole.html#dlm197815

 

RE pimping in NZ:

 

In Section 16 of the Act, any "explicit or implied threat or promise", given in the context of a position of authority or relationship (i.e., by a pimp), may not be used to induce or compel another person to provide commercial sexual services, or to induce or compel the surrender of the avails thereof. Prohibited threats include but are not limited to: the threat to carry out against the person any offense otherwise punishable by imprisonment; supplying or withholding controlled drugs to the person; or attempting to damage the reputation of the person or report the person to the authorities for an offense, including an immigration offence. Penalty: imprisonment for up to 14 years.

 

RE brothel licensing in NZ:

 

Per Sections 34 etc, Operator Certificates (i.e., licenses) are required for brothels with more than 4 sex workers, or for any smaller brothel where any worker works for someone other than themselves. Persons with criminal records (not including convictions under the old prostitution laws) are prohibited from obtaining an Operator Certificate. Penalty for operating without a license: up to NZ$10,000.

[fortunateone 156618]

Thanks, Wrinkled :D

 

I think the main focus of the challenge is that the laws don't work the way they are supposed to. They have been around for 25 years, but it would be interesting to see how many people have actually been arrested, charged and convicted of living off the avails. I guess the main thing is that the accompanying laws do more harm than good. Even living off the avails does more harm, since the reality translates to: sps cannot legally hire driver/security, cannot live/work from home, cannot share their workspace if independent, if they do work from home they cannot live with their children or SOs since those people would be living off the avails. Same goes for any family member, or friend for that matter. One recent court charges are specifically charging the son of an adult sex worker for living off the avails because he still lives at home and she has been charged with running a bawdy house since she worked from there and provided a safe place for other sps to work.

 

I think the New Zealand approach has covered a lot of ifs, ands or buts. They seem to have a regulation or law that addresses every argument against the legalization and regulation of prostitution and I am glad that the studies have shown that it is a success. Far greater success at keeping everyone safe than the Swedish example, that's for sure.

[mod 135639]

The main focus of this groups application is to "Decriminalize" prostitution from what I understand.

 

They do not seam to want it "Legalized" they want it decriminalized completely (This is where I have the issue but I do want to see it as safe as possible for the ladies so I am torn as I appreciate someone fighting for the rights of the workers but I am afraid that it may not be the best way to do this)

 

What N.Z. has is "Regulated by laws" ("Legalized prostitution") and I beleive the current group petitioning the laws would like it to be "self regulated" and "decriminalized" and I do agree what New Zealand has would be great here.

 

NZ's regulations would be a good blueprint for new regulations and laws here. It just takes a lot more work to make laws like this so do we have a lazy government or one that will take the time to do it right? (Roll the dice).

[Susie 1472]

we do not want it decrimed completely.....all industries are subject to inspections and regulations so shall we be.

 

labor laws are sifficient to deal with any arising issues. we are not criminals do not want to be includied in the criminal code.\

 

there are not seperate provisions for killing a nurse for instance. it is accepted that all people are protected by murder, kidnapping, trafficking, and exploitation provisions in the criminal code. so should we be.

 

all industries have codes and standards, we are not expecting special treatment just equal, decriminalized treatment.

 

in vancouver we have revised the esocting /health enancement center by laws and as a result of a motion put forth by council directing city staff to work with us, we will be seeing our demands realized. in the next few months we will engage in an inclusive negotiation to define city by laws here in vancouver that move away from punishment and towards inclusion.

 

we are also asking for a sex industry working group/ review board.

 

Regional/ Municipal Government Review Board- The sex industry is a matter of concern for all members of Canadian Society. To ensure transparency and accountability in the sex industry the CAEC propose the formation of a review committee to represent the interests of society at large. The CAEC feel that if representatives from criminal justice, health, government and a sex industry community member were to audit and monitor the activities of the CAEC, we will achieve transparency and accountability for within the sex industry.

• To ensure transparency and to prevent abuse of Industry Association benefits, CAEC members support the formation of a Regional Government Review Board to ensure ethical industry practices are upheld and the ideals of Canadian Society respected. All CAEC locals and members will allow free access to membership information and proposed activities by the Regional Government Review Board.
  

• To abolish exploitation of youth or any person forced to engage in or trafficked into the sex industry
  

Propsed terms of reference for sex industry working groups, review boards,...any ideas on names would be appreciated....

Vision

 

• to bring together all stakeholders for the purpose of auditing and monitoring activites in the sex industry
  
• to create and inclusive process for license application approval and renewal
  
• to mobilze government response where required to dangerous or exploitative conditions in the sex industry.
  
• to hear complaints from parties engaged in the sex industry and where necessary mediate disputes.
  
• to examine propsoed changes to government policies and procedures as related to sex industry workers to ensure harm reduction frame works remain at the forefront.
  
• to ensure balanced approaches to any enforcement actions to be taken against the sex industry in particular involving legal and legitimate businesses opertaing in the sex industry.
  
• to ensure the principles of the greater public outside of the sex industry are respected.
  
• to hear complaints from the greater public in relation to the sex industry or sex industry businesses and where necessary to mediate disputes.
  

Guiding principles

• Work towards safety and respect for all sex industry stakeholders regardless of their location within the industry;
  
• work towards the eradication of exploitation within the sex industry in particular where youth or trafficked persons are concerned
  
• Ensure the inclusion of diverse communities, perspectives, capacities and expertise within the makeup of working group members;
  
• Promote progressive thought, forward thinking, and continual positive exchange for the empowerment and education of sex industry stakeholders and the community at large;
  
• Keep harm reduction frameworks at the forefront and work toward social justice and social change to increase quality of life for sex industry workers.
  

Membership

• all levels of government
  
• criminal justice/police
  
• health department representatives
  
• sex industry support services
  
• sex industry workers
  
• mainstream community outside of sex industry representatives
  

Group numbers

i would suggest it be a relatively large group- 16 members? in order to ensure no one group capitolizs on the work of the group.

sub committees could take on various tasks individually and report back to the larger group.

minutes would be made public- other than information related the identities of sex industry workers- unless as described above in the case of proof of threat to life or safety of a person.

any comments or ideas?

 

anyway, our idea is to have input into governance of the sex ndustry and to have some say in any enforcement actions or procedures/practices which may harm sex industry community members including targeted enforcement against long standing ethical business owners being unfairly scrutinized as a result of the nature of the business, legal and legitimate or not.

 

in vancouver. after 6 years on committees, there is an understnading that closing sex industry businesses is forcing workers onto the street. that is not to say carte blanch for brothels here but it is to say that those who qualify- no criminal sexual charges- not a pedophile-trafficker- will be supported in opening a business and not given barrier after barrier as was the case at the drake show loung for instance. voted best place in BC to work by the dancers themselves, was targeted by police as a gathering place for "organized crime" and raided over and over. $700,000.00 invested in renovations and still the city refused to issue the license.

 

in my opinion sex industry community members all over the country should get together and unify against the "by law"threat. the benefits of inclusion are easy to demonstrate and we will share all of our materials and experiences with any one who wishes to take it on.

 

WeSwear in winnipeg are up and coming and great groups like power, stella, maggies, spoc already exist.

 

take control of the situation. be calm but un yielding. call your member of parliament over and over until you get a response, go as a delegation to the police board over and over until they are forced to sit down with you.

 

as i said any one who wants to begin this process, now is the time- before the laws fall, to lay the foundation for inclusion during the time after they do fall. then you will be included in any decisions that may impact your safety and stability.

 

love susieXXXO

[Susie 1472]

just to be clear, decrim does not mean no rules and carte blanche for pimps and traffickers, that is rhetoric from abolitionist groups.

 

decrim means an industry which is subject to labor laws, work place inspections and government standards as is any other industry,

 

men die as loggers, fishermen,miners, truckers, oil drillers.....you don't see it being made criminal to employ these workers because they may die on the job.....

 

the point of decrim, is to no longer be considered a criminal. but to be recognized as a legitimate industry and as legitimate employment complete with all the protections awarded to other canadian workers ad business owners.

 

if a guy owns a mine and enslaves children to work there paying them nothing or next to nothing and risking their safety by not implementing and safety protocols or offering and training, he is closed down and charged.

 

no special seperate criminal laws are needed. being seperated in the criminal code contributes to perceptions of violence against sex workers as less, unimportant, different. in order to achieve equality in the eyes of the law and government, being decriminalized is paramount,

 

in new zealand there are codes and standards, condom use is law. it is not carte balnch to open brothels and traffick women and children or a free for all for pimps. it isn't.

 

industry codes and standards for laborers are the foundation of new zealands model and we are working towrds the same here.

 

transparency and accountibility in and for the sex industry.

[Susie 1472]

2. Criminal Record Check Requirement

 

Although the reasons for criminal record checks are obvious, the Coalition?s view is that convictions under criminal code sections related to prostitution (sections 211,212, and 213) shouldn?t automatically exclude sex workers from obtaining an escort license. This is especially so given that those with prior convictions are prevented from working in less harmful indoor venues leaving them with no choice other than to work in the far more hazardous street-based trade. We note here that obtaining a federal criminal pardon can take up to seven years and, in our experience, the Vancouver Police Department does not always chose to acknowledge such pardons.

 

Proposed BCCEW/C Revision

The Coalition requests a community-based consultation on these issues and, ideally, some level of shared decision-making with regard to who is able to apply for and obtain a social escort service and/or individual license. In seeking this, we are in no way advocating a ?carte blanche? approach to licensing but rather we seek an opportunity for controlled community-based vetting in situations where such an approach is warranted.

 

3. Steam Bath/Massage Parlor By-laws: 4782, 6038, 6646

 

Licensing Fees

Current fees: New license: $272, Renewal: $222

 

Proposed BCCEW/C Revision

We request that the fees be lowered to bring them in line with fees required of other similar businesses (e.g. hair salon: New license: $254, Renewal: $204).

 

Sub-section (a)

No person owning, keeping, maintaining, or operating any bath, steam bath or massage parlor shall allow or permit any person of the male sex to act therein as an attendant or employee in respect of any person customer or patron of the female sex; or allow or permit any person of the female sex to act as an attendant or employee in respect of any person, customer or patron of the male sex; nor shall any person owning, keeping, maintaining or operating bath, steam bath or massage parlor attend, treat or serve any person, customer or patron thereof of the opposite sex.

 

Proposed BCCEW/C Revision

We ask that this section be removed as it is obsolete. Today, male and female masseuses routinely massage clients of the opposite sex.

Sub-section (b)

Every person owning, keeping, maintaining or operating and bath, steam bath or massage parlor shall provide and keep therein a written and legible record in journal form of all person?s using the facilities of said bath steam bath or massage parlor to record his or her name and address together with the date and time of registration in such register;

 

Proposed BCCEW/C Revision

We request that these records be considered confidential unless proof of a threat to the life and/or safety of an individual is provided.

 

Sub-section ©

No person owning, keeping, maintaining or operating a steam bath shall allow persons of the opposite sex to occupy the same room or adjoining rooms with an inter-communicating door or which have doors opening into a common steam room. Provided, however, that a person may maintain a steam bath a family room intended to be occupied and occupied by members of the same family, if such a room is closed off from the rest of the steam bath by a door.

 

Proposed BCCEW/C Revision

This section is obsolete and does not in any way reflect current business practices. It is also open to misuse by individuals who may feel a need to disrupt a business of which they do not approve.

 

Sub-section (d)

Every person owning, keeping, maintaining or operating a bath, steam bath or massage parlor shall ensure that the interior of the premises is at all times during business hours illuminated to a minimum of ten foot candles in every part thereof.

 

Proposed BCCEW/C Revision

This section should be revised to reflect current codes and language.

 

4. Health Enhancement Centre By-laws 6830, 7052

 

Sub-section (a)

The Inspector shall not issue a license for a health enhancement centre unless satisfied that the applicant for the license or an officer of the applicant demonstrates a knowledge and understanding of the art and practice of reflexology, Shiatsu, bio-kinesiology, hellework, polarity, reiki, rolfing, the trager approach, or any other therapeutic technique, and the Inspector may in that regard require the applicant or officer to take and pass an examination.

 

Proposed BCCEW/C Revision

While some services licensed under these by-laws do have the ability to require that staff enroll in training that leads to certification, due to the criminalized nature of sex work, sex workers do not have an option to acquire certification. At the same time, this is the business license that sex workers would most prefer to operate under (as long as no additional restrictions or increased enforcement occurs). Given this, the Coalition requests that the City consult with the community to develop an approach that addresses the issue of demonstrated knowledge/experience..

 

Sub-section (b)

All persons carrying on the business of a health enhancement centre shall ensure that all persons hired to administer a therapeutic touch technique are qualified in that respect and have not been convicted of an offence under sections 212 or 213 of the criminal code.

 

Proposed BCCEW/C Revision

This section prevents sex workers, including even those who have exited from the trade, from gaining access to employment in these types of businesses. It presents yet another example of how the most vulnerable sex workers are shamed and cast out of the larger community. We ask that this section be removed.

 

[Susie 1472]

Sub-sections (h)

No person carrying on the business of a body rub parlor shall practice or provide or permit the practice or provision therein of a therapeutic touch technique or advertise in any way that a therapeutic touch technique is available or being practiced on the premises.

 

Proposed BCCEW/C Revision

We note that supporting this definition as the ?license of choice? provides a clear definition between therapeutic massage and ?body rub? parlor thereby eliminating the confusion that arises around these two terms and allowing consumers clear options as far as legal and safe ways to access the industry.

 

6. Governance of Clubs within the City of Vancouver By-Law 2647

 

Section 13

It shall be unlawful for the manager of any Club within the City to knowingly suffer or permit any prostitute or person evil repute to enter or remain upon the club premises.

 

Proposed BCCEW/C Revision

This section reflects discriminatory attitudes about sex workers which greatly contributes to their stigmatization and marginalization. We ask that this section be removed.

 

 

 

7. By-law 5156

 

A by-law to prohibit the carrying on of sundry businesses, trades, professions and other occupations;

1.?nude encounters?- or synonymous word or phrase

2.?out call? body massage service

3.?erotic telephone call? service

 

Proposed BCCEW/C Revision

Since such businesses operate freely and openly in Vancouver, we request that this section be removed.

 

Conclusion

 

Under the Vancouver Charter, Section 202 (a), the City Council ?may provide for social planning to be undertaken including research, analysis and coordination relating to social needs, social well-being, and social development in the City.? The Coalition respectfully requests that Council consider the spirit of this section of the City?s Charter when making its final decisions regarding the proposed revisions.

[drlove 37202]

Thanks, Susie for your very informative posts. Please keep us all aprised of the latest developments as they happen. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for you!

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

Interesting opinion by Philip Slayton, 24 Dec 2009 (although he seems to differ from the applicants on what the "real issues" are):

It?s convenient for politicians to have the prostitution problem in the courts rather than before Parliament. The topic is complicated and controversial. It engages the emotions. People get angry. Votes can be lost. That makes it good political tactics to duck behind the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But the result is that those who want to change the law are forced away from the political arena, where moral and social policy arguments could be considered head-on, and due weight given to public opinion. They are pushed into the courts, and forced to make complex and technical constitutional arguments, which obscure the real issues.

 

Now we wait for Justice Susan Himel to rule on Terri-Jean Bedford?s application. It doesn?t much matter what Justice Himel says, however, because this case is headed to the Ontario Court of Appeal no matter what, and most likely to the Supreme Court after that. The smart money says that Terri-Jean Bedford is going to end up losing. If she does, those who want reform of prostitution laws can only hope that the attention they have attracted along the way will get politicians to do something.

 

If Bedford wins, the laws against operating a bawdy house and living off the avails of prostitution will no longer have any effect. Will Parliament then step in and deal comprehensively with the prostitution issue? Don?t count on it. The Supreme Court struck down Canada?s abortion law in 1988, in the famous case of

R. v. Morgentaler.

There has been no replacement legislation since. The result is that for more than 20 years, Canada has had no abortion law at all. Prostitution could easily join abortion on the too-politically-difficult pile.

 

Since the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadians have come to love re-characterizing political problems as legal questions. We should stop doing it. Our elected representatives should deal with the issue of prostitution, and not let the judiciary decide it by default.

Complete article:

 

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/24/a-trial-in-error/

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

SPOC has posted this on its website:

The final arguments for the Ontario Superior Court level of our legal challenge finished on October 26, 2009.

 

We have received word from the court that

it will have our decision by

September 30, 2010.

If this Court rules in our favour, it's all but certain that the Attorneys General of Canada and Ontario will appeal. If the ruling is against us, we will appeal, assuming we can raise the funds. (Please see donation info at the bottom of this page.)

 

At that point, we go to Appeal Court, aka, the Supreme Court of Ontario where we request leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

 

This is a battle well worth fighting. Our safety and for some of us our very lives depend on it.

 

http://www.spoc.ca/

[drlove 37202]

Thanks for the update. I believe Bedford et. al. have a strong case, and I'm pleased it's moving forward. However, when the impending appeals are factored in, it could be some time before a final resolution is reached.

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

Given the influence that Christian Fundamentalist groups have over the current Government I think we are in for an all out ban similar to that in the US should the current law be struck down.

 

I like things the way they are w nowith outcall perfectly legal so long as the specific rules are followed. I don't see any public support for the kind of full legalization you see in Australia or parts of Europe.

[drlove 37202]

Given the influence that Christian Fundamentalist groups have over the current Government I think we are in for an all out ban similar to that in the US should the current law be struck down.

 

I like things the way they are w nowith outcall perfectly legal so long as the specific rules are followed. I don't see any public support for the kind of full legalization you see in Australia or parts of Europe.

 

That's the problem... the valiant effort put forth here could actually result in having matters go from bad to worse. I wish we had a more liberal society where the flourishing of the sex trade would be a non-issue.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

See my earlier post in this thread for Harper's and the Conservatives' opinion as recorded by the Parliamentary Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws, Dec 2006. Hopefully by the time any final Supreme Court of Canada ruling is made sometime in the coming years, these guys will be in opposition -- or at least still in minority territory in parliament. It is of course absolutely true that any new legal environment that might result from this case is not fully predictable.

 

Nevertheless:

 

If the Bawdyhouse law is struck down on the basis of the appellant's claim that it pointlessly endangers sex workers, it is unclear how any new law that might be drafted with the more extreme goal of completely prohibiting the selling of sex could escape the same legal flaw. On the contrary, any such law that might be drafted in defiance of the Supreme Court would compromise the safety of sex workers even more. It, too, would surely be struck down on the same basis, if the Federal Government were crazy enough to have a go at such a thing.

 

As for public support, see the Macleans/Angus Reid poll of last October, where 60% supported allowing prostitutes to work indoors or in brothels (30% opposed, and 10% were not sure).

 

http://www.cerb.ca/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=93716&highlight=angus#post93716

[thompo69 198]

If the Bawdyhouse law is struck down on the basis of the appellant's claim that it pointlessly endangers sex workers, it is unclear how any new law that might be drafted with the more extreme goal of completely prohibiting the selling of sex could escape the same legal flaw. On the contrary, any such law that might be drafted in defiance of the Supreme Court would compromise the safety of sex workers even more. It, too, would surely be struck down on the same basis, if the Federal Government were crazy enough to have a go at such a thing.

 

If they are committed enough to the cause, section 33 (notwithstanding clause) comes to mind.