The need for a change in Canada's sex work laws

[rld]

Not by everyone, and certainly not here.



So you think the Ontario Court of Appeal has already made a decision and is just sitting on it?



I don't see how advocacy on behalf of others is self-aggrandizement.



The federal government has pretty much stated that if they lose their case at the Ontario Court of Appeal, they will take it to the Supremes. And certainly, the conversatives may try to pass some legislation that further solidifies the illegal status of many sex work related actions. This being said, I would never discount the power of individuals to make a difference. It's true that many people don't want to involve themselves in such a contentious issue. That being said, some do and it's these people who have and will continue to make all the difference.

The trip to the SCC is not a free ride.

Believing that your postings on any number of boards, in the fashion that you have done here, will have any impact on the panel or the legislature I would suggest is at least naive and unrealistic.

And if you like, let me clarify. Your efforts will have no impact on the outcome of the case or the legislation. What people jaw about around here rarely, if ever, changes anything.

 

[neverwas]

So no laws were challenged by this case.

You might give more time to reflect on what you're saying before you post it.

Now that is a silly negative comment! Of course laws were challenged, but they were the laws related to certain activities often associated with prostitution. As I said, prostitution itself is not illegal in Canada.
Perhaps you should take more time to reflect before you post

 

[rld]

So you think the Ontario Court of Appeal has already made a decision and is just sitting on it?

Sorry, I missed this question on my earlier read through.

The short answer is yes and no.

By the time they get to the hearing itself they have already read all of the factums and the case law, and summaries of the arguments and some further research done by their clerks.

They then listen to the arguments, get bored quickly and the start interrupting everybody with questions and directing the counsel to speak about the points the panel considers important, not what the lawyers think is important. And they take a bunch of notes.

Within a couple of days the panel (in this case 5) get together and sit around and say "do you think the arguments raised an legal issues that require further research?" If so they send their clerks off to do it.

Then they get together (almost always within a month of the hearing) and vote on which way to rule. They then know what the majority decision will be. They also know how many minority opinions there will be at this point. So they know, usually within a month how they are going to decide the case.

Then they have to write the darned decision, which takes forever. I could babble on at length about exactly how the judges shuttle drafts back and forth etc, but the problem is pretty straightforward.

 

[legmann]

I bet you that if it gets legalized the prices will go up.

Price should go down (in theory); you pay a premium for escorts in the US precisely because prostitution is illegal.

 

[MattRoxx]

Y'know, the cognitive dissonance of Conservatives continues to baffle me.
1. The census must be scrapped because it is too intrusive for the government to know "How many bedrooms are in your home?"
2. Laws against prostitution must be maintained or strengthened because it is not too intrusive, in fact it is the government's responsibility, to know and enact laws concerning the behaviour of consenting adults in bedrooms.

WTF?!@#$!?

The trip to the SCC is not a free ride.

Believing that your postings on any number of boards, in the fashion that you have done here, will have any impact on the panel or the legislature I would suggest is at least naive and unrealistic.

And if you like, let me clarify. Your efforts will have no impact on the outcome of the case or the legislation. What people jaw about around here rarely, if ever, changes anything.

Believing that your postings on this board, in the fashion that you have done here, will have any impact on Scott75 I would suggest is at least naive and unrealistic.:Eek:

 

[Scott75]

The trip to the SCC is not a free ride.

Believing that your postings on any number of boards, in the fashion that you have done here, will have any impact on the panel or the legislature I would suggest is at least naive and unrealistic.

And if you like, let me clarify. Your efforts will have no impact on the outcome of the case or the legislation. What people jaw about around here rarely, if ever, changes anything.

I'm not just talking on here. And I've only started. Anyway, I think that if everyone thought that their voices didn't count, we'd never get anywhere. I think the occupy movement is testament of what can be done when people -do- think that what they do can count. And I don't think you have to occupy some street or park in order to be part of the occupy movement. I think you just have to be part of this movement that practices varying levels of civil dissent and even civil disobedience. Heck, the whole reason the sex work laws are being challenged is precisely because some people refused to follow certain elements of the law.

 

[Scott75]

Now that is a silly negative comment! Of course laws were challenged, but they were the laws related to certain activities often associated with prostitution. As I said, prostitution itself is not illegal in Canada.

Technically no, but the conditions for practicing it legally are so restrictive (being forced to perform sexual acts in the homes or in hotels with complete strangers to acquire new clients) that it creates a very serious impediment to the trade. Put another way, it could be said that prostitution is still illegal in Canada, unless practiced in a very restrictive way.

 

[Scott75]

Sorry, I missed this question on my earlier read through.

The short answer is yes and no.

By the time they get to the hearing itself they have already read all of the factums and the case law, and summaries of the arguments and some further research done by their clerks.

They then listen to the arguments, get bored quickly and the start interrupting everybody with questions and directing the counsel to speak about the points the panel considers important, not what the lawyers think is important. And they take a bunch of notes.

Within a couple of days the panel (in this case 5) get together and sit around and say "do you think the arguments raised an legal issues that require further research?" If so they send their clerks off to do it.

Then they get together (almost always within a month of the hearing) and vote on which way to rule. They then know what the majority decision will be. They also know how many minority opinions there will be at this point. So they know, usually within a month how they are going to decide the case.

Then they have to write the darned decision, which takes forever. I could babble on at length about exactly how the judges shuttle drafts back and forth etc, but the problem is pretty straightforward.

I see. So you seem to be saying that essentially, the court has already made its decision and now all it's doing is writing it out. Fair enough. In any case, regardless of this decision, I don't think that this issue has ended; even if they rule in favour of the sex workers, the conservative government has already said they would plan to appeal in such an event.

 

[Scott75]

Believing that your postings on this board, in the fashion that you have done here, will have any impact on Scott75 I would suggest is at least naive and unrealistic.:Eek:

Well, I don't know how court decisions are made, so I'll take his word for that part. But I also believe that the more Canadians try to persuade other Canadians that the prostitution laws should change, the faster this will come to pass.

 

[afterhours]

Price should go down (in theory); you pay a premium for escorts in the US precisely because prostitution is illegal.

I expect the government to HST, tax, levy and fee the living shit out of it.
We would be lucky if the prices go up only 30%.

 

[nottyboi]

Well, I don't know how court decisions are made, so I'll take his word for that part. But I also believe that the more Canadians try to persuade other Canadians that the prostitution laws should change, the faster this will come to pass.

Yes that may be true, but we have a conservative govt in power. In IMHO if the court strikes down the law, first there will be an appeal, and legislation, if required, will more tightly regulate prostitution, (similar to laws in Sweden I suspect).

 

[neverwas]

I think Scott's attempts to influence part of the broader public can be beneficial. It is not unknown for the courts to have regard to community values when making decisions, especialloy in issues dealing with morality. If he has a wider audience there is the possibility of affecting attitudes.
Scott, I disagree with your categorization of prostitution as essentially illegal. Most of my early years hobbying consisted of completely legal acts. When I was out of town, staying in a hotel, I had arranged with an independent SP for her to visit. At the time I did not feel greatly restricted, and her conduct was legal. This is not an uncommon scenario in the business. I recognize that, from her point of view, this activity was more restrictive than many of us would like and that is what the legal action is attempting to address.
I support the aims of the action and would not be surprised, if the lower court ruling is upheld at appeal, that the federal government took no action to overturn the effect of the court decision. The government shows a desire to remain "hands off" on issues like abortion and same sex marriage. This could be a sufficiently similar issue to be ducked.

 

[Scott75]

Yes that may be true, but we have a conservative govt in power. In IMHO if the court strikes down the law, first there will be an appeal, and legislation, if required, will more tightly regulate prostitution, (similar to laws in Sweden I suspect).

I think we should ask ourselves why we have a conservative government in power. As the saying goes, "All that is needed for the forces of evil to succeed is for enough good men to remain silent." So I'm going to try to do my part to bring it up. People may not respond sometimes, but I think that eventually people will start to talk more about this. It's also possible that I've been frequenting the wrong forums. To give what I think is an extreme example of non conformity to the norm, anyone seen topix.com's sexuality forum? All I have to say is oh.. my.. god. Anyway .

 

[Scott75]

I think Scott's attempts to influence part of the broader public can be beneficial. It is not unknown for the courts to have regard to community values when making decisions, especially in issues dealing with morality. If he has a wider audience there is the possibility of affecting attitudes.

Thanks

Scott, I disagree with your categorization of prostitution as essentially illegal. Most of my early years hobbying consisted of completely legal acts. When I was out of town, staying in a hotel, I had arranged with an independent SP for her to visit. At the time I did not feel greatly restricted, and her conduct was legal. This is not an uncommon scenario in the business. I recognize that, from her point of view, this activity was more restrictive than many of us would like and that is what the legal action is attempting to address.

Yeah, I think the current system generally works for the johns, it's the sex workers themselves who are generally more at risk this way.

I support the aims of the action and would not be surprised, if the lower court ruling is upheld at appeal, that the federal government took no action to overturn the effect of the court decision. The government shows a desire to remain "hands off" on issues like abortion and same sex marriage. This could be a sufficiently similar issue to be ducked.

The federal government has already asked for time to prepare an appeal in the event that the lower court decision is upheld. I don't think they're going to back down.

 

[afterhours]

Yeah, I think the current system generally works for the johns, it's the sex workers themselves who are generally more at risk this way.

exactly! let's not rock the fucking boat if we don't want them duly elected motherfuckers to criminalize johns.

 

[GG2]

Why ruin a good thing?

 

[afterhours]

Why ruin a good thing?

thank you

 

[Scott75]

Why ruin a good thing?

It can be so much better. Especially for the SPs. Seriously man, what are we, weaklings begging for scraps from the powers that be? I think we need to think a little bigger. Think Benjamin Franklin:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

We owe it to all the SPs out there.

 

[rld]

I think Scott's attempts to influence part of the broader public can be beneficial. It is not unknown for the courts to have regard to community values when making decisions, especialloy in issues dealing with morality. If he has a wider audience there is the possibility of affecting attitudes.
Scott, I disagree with your categorization of prostitution as essentially illegal. Most of my early years hobbying consisted of completely legal acts. When I was out of town, staying in a hotel, I had arranged with an independent SP for her to visit. At the time I did not feel greatly restricted, and her conduct was legal. This is not an uncommon scenario in the business. I recognize that, from her point of view, this activity was more restrictive than many of us would like and that is what the legal action is attempting to address.
I support the aims of the action and would not be surprised, if the lower court ruling is upheld at appeal, that the federal government took no action to overturn the effect of the court decision. The government shows a desire to remain "hands off" on issues like abortion and same sex marriage. This could be a sufficiently similar issue to be ducked.

While it is "not unknown" for the courts to consider community values in their decisions, they are only allowed to in certain circumstances. This is not one of them.

Scott posting fairly inarticulate posts on internet boards will not influence the court of appeal panel. They have already heard/read multiple written submissions that include all the best data and science on the issue. A guess after reading all that they will go "oh gee I never thought of that" when they see his OP. Right.

I don't think the Tories will leave this issue alone for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it is a NIMBY issue. Secondly it is a chance to throw a bone to their far right supporters with almost no downside.

 

[rld]

I think we should ask ourselves why we have a conservative government in power. As the saying goes, "All that is needed for the forces of evil to succeed is for enough good men to remain silent." So I'm going to try to do my part to bring it up. People may not respond sometimes, but I think that eventually people will start to talk more about this. It's also possible that I've been frequenting the wrong forums. To give what I think is an extreme example of non conformity to the norm, anyone seen topix.com's sexuality forum? All I have to say is oh.. my.. god. Anyway .

While you have the slogans down, I have lobbied at the federal and provincial level for years.

Discussions on internet chat boards, have no impact on policy making.

Internet petitions have no impact on policy making.

Real petitions with real signatures are the first place they start paying attention.

And the reason we have a conservative government in power is because they won the majority of the seats with the largest number of votes.