New prostitution bill expected 'well before' deadline, Peter MacKay says

[Guest N***he**Ont**y]

Justice Minister Peter MacKay says the government will introduce its new prostitution legislation well ahead of the December deadline.

 

Speaking in Halifax, MacKay said Ottawa has already started to draft the legislation, but more consultations must happen with police and provincial governments.

 

He wouldn't say when the bill would be introduced, but vowed that it would be "well before" the one-year time frame it was given.

 

The Supreme Court of Canada struck down the country's anti-prostitution laws late last year, ruling that laws banning street soliciting, living on the avails and keeping a brothel are unconstitutional.

 

The ruling means prostitution-related offences will remain in the Criminal Code until December.

 

MacKay said the new legislation will continue to protect women from violence and sexual abuse.

 

© The Canadian Press, 2014

[Ice4fun 78396]

I think if the Government act fast to address this it will mean they want to return to restrictions on the sex trade in the mis-guided idea that they need to save sex workers instead of giving then the ability to protect themselves and run a legal business.

 

Just my opinion.

[fortunateone 156618]

Well, at least this time they plan to ask others first before coming up with something i.e. police and provincial. Why don't they ask city councils of those police departments what they want to do, or are already doing? Why don't they list sex worker organizations for some input before they come up with something. why don't they just leave it alone, and accept the fact that they already have laws on the books to address everything they need to address for sex work, being it is just like any other kind of work.

[drlove 37202]

I think if the Government act fast to address this it will mean they want to return to restrictions on the sex trade in the mis-guided idea that they need to save sex workers instead of giving then the ability to protect themselves and run a legal business.

 

Just my opinion.

 

Unfortunately, I agree with you. My guess is the legislation will be either:

 

A) Some version of the Nordic approach, which will have the effect of criminalizing the client

 

or

 

B) Making prostitution illegal in Canada for the first time ever

[whiteman 14028]

I think if the Government act fast to address this it will mean they want to return to restrictions on the sex trade in the mis-guided idea that they need to save sex workers instead of giving then the ability to protect themselves and run a legal business.

 

Just my opinion.

I think I'll reserve my outrage until I actually see the bill that they are proposing. I personally don't think the Conservatives are the worst party to be in power during this time, as I don't see the Liberals doing anything much different.

 

And I would think the NDP would be actually the worst party to trust in this situation, as they are a caucus dominated by feminists, and depending on which faction of feminists have the larger power, the bill they'd come up with would be quite different. One faction of feminists would be the ones who consider all forms of sex work to be coerced and therefore should be illegalized. And another faction consider woman's right to do with her body as she pleases. I think this mix of forces were at play in Sweden when they came up with the infamous Nordic model, one group wanted to outlaw it completely, and another group said women should be free to do what they please. So they came up with a compromise, and completely outlawed the men from buying the services that they just legalized the women to sell. Schizophrenic? Sure, but no one said a law has to make common sense.

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

It will be Nordic! The ideal for a government which want to come up with something.

It is the best package for the masses. All what you have to do is point to the public that two "Scandinavian" countries are implementing the model.

 

This is democracy and the majority are outside CERB.

[whiteman 14028]

It will be Nordic! The ideal for a government which want to come up with something.

It is the best package for the masses. All what you have to do is point to the public that two "Scandinavian" countries are implementing the model.

 

This is democracy and the majority are outside CERB.

Not if they don't want it immediately challenged and thrown out in another round of court battles. I suspect that the courts will be advising the government prior to any law they prepare.

[fortunateone 156618]

Sweden put their law in place in 1999. That is a long time ago, and many perceptions in society have changed, and it probably wouldn't pass thru the same way today that it did then. One thing sps are a lot more vocal and a lot more organized than they were then.

 

There are other options that are more successful that have more of a proven record that can be chosen as well. If it was 2000 or 2001 and Sweden had the only example of what could be done, it would be different. But in 2014 NZ and Germany have both had decriminalized legalization for many many years and have done follow up studies at least 5 years later to find out if there were more, less or the same kinds of problems, if things improved or didn't. The research is out there for these other models, as it is with Sweden, and people are more aware of it.

 

One thing that has to end is the automatic tag of 'sex' onto 'trafficking' and the idea that is being perpetuated that 'prostitution' is the same thing as 'sex trafficking."

 

i feel that these new laws they come up with are going to be focused on sex trafficking and that in some way it might stop sps from traveling to different parts of the country. City licenses would that are enforced are already deterring the desire to work in some cities, as a traveling sp. What i mean is that they are going to try to link 'traveling' with 'trafficking' and make that a really difficult thing to do, just as they currently make working out of an incall a difficult thing to do.

[cyclo 30131]

I suspect that the courts will be advising the government prior to any law they prepare.

 

With respect to this point, "the courts" can't provide confidential or "behind the scenes" advice on how to prepare the new legislation.

 

If the government wants to get advice from the Supreme Court, they have to make a public referral to the Court asking for an opinion on certain questions or on a draft of the legislation. Presentations and questions would be asked in open court and then a written public ruling would be issued by the court.

[canuckhooker 19202]

With respect to this point, "the courts" can't provide confidential or "behind the scenes" advice on how to prepare the new legislation.

 

If the government wants to get advice from the Supreme Court, they have to make a public referral to the Court asking for an opinion on certain questions or on a draft of the legislation. Presentations and questions would be asked in open court and then a written public ruling would be issued by the court.

 

I don't think they need to ask the courts. It won't be Nordic because the major points of that model were struck down by the court, because prostitution is legal. Unless they criminalize the SPs as well as the clients they are basically reinstating the same laws.

 

They won't need the courts to tell them that, they have enough lawyers on staff who will give them the same opinion.

[qwertyaccount 15793]

I think if the Government act fast to address this it will mean they want to return to restrictions on the sex trade in the mis-guided idea that they need to save sex workers instead of giving then the ability to protect themselves and run a legal business.

 

It could also be that they need to act fast to be seen doing "something".

 

This is a no-win type situation for any government; if they do nothing then they are endorsing prostitution, if they make it illegal they are taking away the ability of people to make an otherwise legal living.

[whiteman 14028]

With respect to this point, "the courts" can't provide confidential or "behind the scenes" advice on how to prepare the new legislation.

 

If the government wants to get advice from the Supreme Court, they have to make a public referral to the Court asking for an opinion on certain questions or on a draft of the legislation. Presentations and questions would be asked in open court and then a written public ruling would be issued by the court.

I've heard of proposed bills being referred to the courts prior to enactment just to make sure they have a minimal chance of being constitutionally acceptable. It's not a full hearing and debate, just a referral with a quick yes or no. The government can still try to enact a law even if the court suggested it may not pass muster. But of course, then if they push through with that legislation, it's guaranteed to be challenged and struck down by the courts. At that point, they can't complain that no one told them so ahead of time.

 

However, that may only be a last minute decision to ask the courts. The Justice Dept has its own lawyers who can provide interpretations earlier. They may only need to consult the courts, just in case some part of a ruling is unclear.

[drlove 37202]

...if they make it illegal they are taking away the ability of people to make an otherwise legal living.

 

Yes, but could this not again be challenged in the courts? After all, the laws were struck down since they infringed on 'the safety of the person'. If I'm correct in my assumption, any new legislation needs to address the spirit of the ruling by making it safer for workers to ply their trade, so to speak. Making prostitution illegal will only make it more dangerous for women, thus railing against what the court had intended.

[fortunateone 156618]

Yes, but could this not again be challenged in the courts? After all, the laws were struck down since they infringed on 'the safety of the person'. If I'm correct in my assumption, any new legislation needs to address the spirit of the ruling by making it safer for workers to ply their trade, so to speak. Making prostitution illegal will only make it more dangerous for women, thus railing against what the court had intended.

 

That would be true if you criminalized the purchase of sexual services, and left the sex workers legal meaning they couldn't be prosecuted themselves. But if the fed made prostitution itself illegal, (which i am not sure that they can), then everyone would be charged, and of course, all the victims saved because they can't work in it ever, at all, never, so of course, no one can say the law makes it more dangerous, because everyone will stop doing it. :)

 

 

Even tho prostitution is illegal in the US, it is really I think only illegal via each state. That is why I think Nevada is able to regulate in certain areas and why Rhode Island also did (up until recently, they were similar to nevada). It is the state that makes it illegal, by legislation. Federally, due to the Mann Act (around 1910), the only thing the Feds can do is nab someone for crossing state lines for the purpose of prostitution, whether that person is transporting themselves or someone is driving them.

 

Its my understanding that it seems that neither the US or Canadian feds can make it illegal, or at least not easily. Otherwise both would have already done it, and if the US had done it, then there is no way Nevada or Rhode Island could have regulated to allow it. Which kind of means that any state technically could go the same route, they just have to decide to set it up. which is unlikely, but hey, Colorada decriminalized the sale of pot recently, meaning that the fed have no say in whether that is legal or illegal.

 

They can cover things like crossing state lines, but not legalizing the sale of it I guess.

[Alicia Lovely 100]

Bonjour! Fed laws in USA criminalise prostitution and drugs. But the states are independants. They are free to legalise what Fed criminalise. Au revoir!

[Brad 49548]

Its my understanding that it seems that neither the US or Canadian feds can make it illegal, or at least not easily.

 

Your general points may still be true, but I don't think you can't quite compare Canada law and USA law in that way.

 

In Canada, criminal law is pretty much exclusively in the jurisdiction of the federal government, not the provinces.

 

In the USA, however, there is both Federal law and State level law. And though you'll hear of a "federal crime", the reality is that most crimes are actually prosecuted at the state law level.

[Guest Ou**or**n]

It will be the Nordic model. McKay wants to Prime Minister after Harper and the first step is by appealing to 'the base'. As echoed by other posters in this thread, he won't care if his own lawyers tell him it won't pass the supreme court. They were told some of the mandatory sentencing laws wouldn't pass and they've gone ahead anyway.

 

The war isn't over and there will be another battle coming. The battle will be over the new Nordic model and will take 5-10 years to fight.

 

It's time to start getting used to the idea. It will be key to see the details of the Canadian implementation of the Nordic model. Will it be a criminal offense or a fine? Will advertising be banned? How aggressively will local police forces enforce it?

 

Time to start establishing working relationships with good indies right now as the agencies will likely be wiped out.

[canuckhooker 19202]

It will be the Nordic model. McKay wants to Prime Minister after Harper and the first step is by appealing to 'the base'. As echoed by other posters in this thread, he won't care if his own lawyers tell him it won't pass the supreme court. They were told some of the mandatory sentencing laws wouldn't pass and they've gone ahead anyway.

 

The war isn't over and there will be another battle coming. The battle will be over the new Nordic model and will take 5-10 years to fight.

 

It's time to start getting used to the idea. It will be key to see the details of the Canadian implementation of the Nordic model. Will it be a criminal offense or a fine? Will advertising be banned? How aggressively will local police forces enforce it?

 

Time to start establishing working relationships with good indies right now as the agencies will likely be wiped out.

 

Sorry but it won't be 5-10 years of fighting. That battle is won, and they can't go back on it. It is why the Nordic model will not be implemented. It will be impossible to get a conviction because every court case will be thrown out. Lower courts cannot ignore the Supreme court ruling. So look, for the not withstanding clause maybe, but even then that may not fly either. You are going to see outright criminalization or regulation.

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

My father taught me once that judges are "smart" politicians! Here we are facing Bedford decision and a good portion of this community believe it was a "total" win.

 

With all respect, NO. The Supreme Court itself has stayed the invalidation of supposedly unconstitutional laws for one year. This is a "serious" matter which means that the Supreme court was convinced that a serious harm to the society could be incurred absent any criminal provisions specifically addressed to prostitution.

 

Therefore criminal laws will be introduced. The Supreme Court decision was not about the Nordic model. This was not the question before them. Now, if we want to select a paragraph here and there, then Taliban regimen might find some paragraphs to their amusement as well. The reasons they will go for the Nordic model are the adoption of such model by well developed countries and the fact that clients are the weakest in this chain.

 

For sex workers to prove that the Nordic model is affecting their security, time and evidence need to evolve! And politicians always play on the passage of time. If they can get away with it, they will do it! Don't quote me some wimpy academics or intellectuals sitting in their ivory towers, reality is production of those who posses the power.

[canuckhooker 19202]

My father taught me once that judges are "smart" politicians! Here we are facing Bedford decision and a good portion of this community believe it was a "total" win.

 

With all respect, NO. The Supreme Court itself has stayed the invalidation of supposedly unconstitutional laws for one year. This is a "serious" matter which means that the Supreme court was convinced that a serious harm to the society could be incurred absent any criminal provisions specifically addressed to prostitution.

 

Therefore criminal laws will be introduced. The Supreme Court decision was not about the Nordic model. This was not the question before them. Now, if we want to select a paragraph here and there, then Taliban regimen might find some paragraphs to their amusement as well. The reasons they will go for the Nordic model are the adoption of such model by well developed countries and the fact that clients are the weakest in this chain.

 

For sex workers to prove that the Nordic model is affecting their security, time and evidence need to evolve! And politicians always play on the passage of time. If they can get away with it, they will do it! Don't quote me some wimpy academics or intellectuals sitting in their ivory towers, reality is production of those who posses the power.

 

You have an interpretation of what was said in Bedford that is deeply flawed. The court ruled that current laws are unconstitutional. They gave the government a one year stay to prevent what would be a vacuum in the current system.

 

If they struck down all those laws immediately, it would create a vacuum in the whole sex work industry. And despite all the good intentions of everyone on this board, the people most likely to see an opportunity in this, and more importantly the way to make a lot of dollars, are those who are the criminal element; the pimps, the procurers; the traffickers. Despite the other laws governing trafficking and abuse, the court would literally be giving them an open field on which to play. They needed the government and the common citizen to understand the magnitude of the decision, and how to react to protect the most vulnerable.

 

We have a tight, tolerant, respectful, supportive community on this board, and on other boards. That is not the reality for all people who are coerced in to sex work. I don't think their numbers are any where close to like the press and the abolitionists like to think, but they do exist. People reading this are probably the best equipped folks to understand and protect those who are being exploited.

 

We can debate this all we want, but the Supreme Court did the right thing, not only for Sex Workers, but also to protect those who were vulnerable to end up being trafficked. It is complex, and I am happy with what they did. They didn't stay the decision for one year to make the Conservative party happy, they did it to protect everyone.

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

You have an interpretation of what was said in Bedford that is deeply flawed. The court ruled that current laws are unconstitutional. They gave the government a one year stay to prevent what would be a vacuum in the current system.

 

If they struck down all those laws immediately, it would create a vacuum in the whole sex work industry. And despite all the good intentions of everyone on this board, the people most likely to see an opportunity in this, and more importantly the way to make a lot of dollars, are those who are the criminal element; the pimps, the procurers; the traffickers. Despite the other laws governing trafficking and abuse, the court would literally be giving them an open field on which to play. They needed the government and the common citizen to understand the magnitude of the decision, and how to react to protect the most vulnerable.

 

We have a tight, tolerant, respectful, supportive community on this board, and on other boards. That is not the reality for all people who are coerced in to sex work. I don't think their numbers are any where close to like the press and the abolitionists like to think, but they do exist. People reading this are probably the best equipped folks to understand and protect those who are being exploited.

 

We can debate this all we want, but the Supreme Court did the right thing, not only for Sex Workers, but also to protect those who were vulnerable to end up being trafficked. It is complex, and I am happy with what they did. They didn't stay the decision for one year to make the Conservative party happy, they did it to protect everyone.

 

I truly question if you actually read my post!

 

With all respect, NO. The Supreme Court itself has stayed the invalidation of supposedly unconstitutional laws for one year. This is a "serious" matter which means that the Supreme court was convinced that a serious harm to the society could be incurred absent any criminal provisions specifically addressed to prostitution.

[drlove 37202]

While a part of me still believes the new legislation will be Nordic in some way shape or form, (This IS the Conservative Government, after all *lol*) I'm still not clear how it can be implemented in practice. For instance, if it becomes legal for ladies to operate 'bawdy houses', yet illegal for a client to purchase said services, how would that work? Will clients be arrested as they pay? Seriously... what a conundrum!

[fortunateone 156618]

While a part of me still believes the new legislation will be Nordic in some way shape or form, (This IS the Conservative Government, after all *lol*) I'm still not clear how it can be implemented in practice. For instance, if it becomes legal for ladies to operate 'bawdy houses', yet illegal for a client to purchase said services, how would that work? Will clients be arrested as they pay? Seriously... what a conundrum!

 

 

 

I think it would work like this:

 

http://www.thelocal.se/20130226/46422

 

Feb 26 2013

Police in Stockholm were surprised on Monday to find that a man they had arrested for buying sex from a prostitute was the duty prosecutor to whom they were obliged to report the crime.

 

And there is this highlighting the level of stigma that is now acceptable against sex workers, not their clients, they themselves.

 

http://www.thelocal.se/20130912/50200

 

A pub in south central Sweden has been cleared of discrimination charges after bouncers denied entry to several women of Asian appearance in what owners claimed was an attempt to cut down on prostitution.

 

Another favourite (another story mentions a swedish politician was found to be owner of 3 different Thai mps)

 

http://www.thelocal.se/20120110/38422

 

http://www.thelocal.se/20130808/49526

 

Every fifth Thai massage parlour in Malmö, southern Sweden, accepts requests for sexual gratification at the end of a session, a Swedish newspaper reported on Thursday.

 

And of course

 

http://www.thelocal.se/20130527/48160

 

Despite Sweden's much-debated and soon 15-year-old law that bans buying sex, rather than selling it, the statute has not resulted in any convicted sex buyers spending time behind bars.

[Alicia Lovely 100]

Bonjour! Thank you very much for the informations!