How would you prefer Canada dealt with prostitution?

[Sweet Emily J 172062]

So there would go the 'cash business' aspect of service providers. HST etc would need to be collected just like any other business.

 

Escort services already are HST taxable. In Ontario, just like any other self employed individual (aside from those selling the few exempt goods/services) who claims over $30,000 per year in business income, escorts who gross over that threshhold must be an HST registered business and be paying into it.

 

13% off the top of every donation paid to a legitimate tax paying HST registered escort goes straight to the government; the rest is then taxed again as income.

[VedaSloan 119179]

It doesn't much matter what Canadians think, honestly. We have a Harper majority government which would never accept decriminalization of prostitution on their watch. If the courts strike down the current laws, expect new ones to be passed swiftly along the Swedish model. It'll be supported by that subset of feminism which believes women can't actually consent within a prostitution model, activists against sexual trafficking and the NIMBYs who think that decriminalization will lead to prostitutes on every corner and in their suburbs. It will pass easily and that will be that, and don't expect it to be revoked by a Liberal or NDP successor.

 

It would have been much better if the challenge had never been brought, though they couldn't have known that at the time.

 

 

I really respectfully disagree. Although the anti-sex work radfems are highly vocal, they are but a small subset of the Canadian population, the majority of whom don't think about prostitution at all. And even at the OCA, while bawdy house provision was struck down, the living off the avails law modified and the communicating law upheld, the decision to uphold the communicating law was not unanimous. Another strike against the prohibitionists is that although they are quite vocal, the judges are not fools. They have in the past two cases recognized the inferiority and flawed nature of anti-sex work "research."

 

Given that the SCC already ruled that the federal government could not close down Insite (North America's only safe injection site), a similar controversial issue, I have a good feeling for the SCC decision on prostitution laws.

 

Plus, this case is important for more than just the laws. It is important that sex workers be heard. This challenge has done more than just challenge the laws, it has brought the issue into the public spotlight and highlighted how damaging the laws are to sex workers. Most people probably never thought about prostitution before, but they will now.

[MrGoodGuy 100]

Decriminalization. As for NIMBY, operating discretely a small home-based business should avoid any local zoning bylaw issues. And even if some municipalities do regulate by by-law, still no comparison between that and criminal code.

[cyclo 30131]

Given that the SCC already ruled that the federal government could not close down Insite (North America's only safe injection site), a similar controversial issue, I have a good feeling for the SCC decision on prostitution laws.

 

Good point. The Supreme Court decision striking down abortion laws is another relevant example of the Court using the Charter to defend individual freedoms on a polarizing social issue.

[Guest C*****tte]

I really respectfully disagree. Although the anti-sex work radfems are highly vocal, they are but a small subset of the Canadian population, the majority of whom don't think about prostitution at all. And even at the OCA, while bawdy house provision was struck down, the living off the avails law modified and the communicating law upheld, the decision to uphold the communicating law was not unanimous. Another strike against the prohibitionists is that although they are quite vocal, the judges are not fools. They have in the past two cases recognized the inferiority and flawed nature of anti-sex work "research."

 

In addition, instead of the loud voices of the usual anti-sex work radfems it was the religious right traditional values 'real' women types who were, to me the loudest, when asked to speak as intervenors. This annoyed me to no end, but when I heard their presentations I knew that it would not resonate with the judges and with the population at large. They were too outdated. Too based on their version of morality over safety.

 

Check out their appearance on cbc.

 

Darn, I cannot get it to play on my iPad. Goggle CBC and Prostituion Laws Challenged. When I get to a desktop I will add the link.

 

For an interesting, and refreshing, feminist voice in the sex work debate I highly recommend the Feminist Alliance in Solidarity for Sex Workers' Rights. I say refreshing because sex workers and allied groups in Quebec have been continually challenged by some, but clearly not all, feminist groups.

 

http://www.alliancefeministesolidaire.org/about-us.html