Major new judicial ruling strikes down C-36 (again)

[mandrill]

Judge rules key federal sex work laws unconstitutional

“The legislation cannot stand in the path of commercial sex workers who take steps to protect themselves and their health from violence or harm,” Superior Court Justice Phillip Sutherland wrote in his decision.

www.thestar.com

 

[Tomoreno]

Ah, good news!

 

[Jenesis]

The government is going to need to do something to balance the right of free-will escorts and trafficked persons. That is the problem they are having.

They need laws to stop traffickers but all those traffickers use the same systems as us. Stopping one, essentially stops the other.

They need to find a different approach.

 

[canada-man]

 

[Soccersweeper]

We still need a ruling to strike down the criminalizing the John provisions. The idea that a service is legal to sell but not to buy (and makes you a criminal at that) is an absurdity and basically entrapment. Just legalize it, tax it, and use the revenue to go after traffickers, the real criminals.

 

[Dave in Phoenix]

Do we have any idea if the Crown will appeal? We now have two wins against C36 including the prior London Ont Superior Court that was not appealed. It seems the Crown doesn't want to appeal because they may lose which would make C36 void in all of Canada not just a precedent in Ontario, as I understand it.

BTW I just discovered two of my linked sites were hacked and one phished so suspended. Am working with my hosts tech support. I have backups but have to research how to upload/reinstall tar.gz files back to the server.

 

[mandrill]

Do we have any idea if the Crown will appeal? We now have two wins against C36 including the prior London Ont Superior Court that was not appealed. It seems the Crown doesn't want to appeal because they may lose which would make C36 void in all of Canada not just a precedent in Ontario, as I understand it.

BTW I just discovered two of my linked sites were hacked and one phished so suspended. Am working with my hosts tech support. I have backups but have to research how to upload/reinstall tar.gz files back to the server.

The Anwar decision in London was Ontario Court level (the lowest level of judicial court), not Superior Court. The new decision is Superior Court, but still just a trial decision.

Officially, the Crown is mulling over the decision to appeal, but my guess is that they will not, as it's likely a loser. If two judges make the same decision, that's an indication that the Bench as a whole has staked its position.

 

[Dave in Phoenix]

Thanks for the correction.

The earlier original case that resulted in C36 that tossed out old bawdy house and living of avails law was Ontario Superior Court and the Judge's written ruling was one of the longest in Canadian history as I recall justifying it. I have it somewhere. So the arguments have been made extensively that escorts etc are protected by the Charter due to safety issues.

Is the written ruling in the latest case (forget what it's called) available to read? I think I have the Anwar case ruling.

Your courts are a bit confusing for us in the US since our Superior Court is only 2nd level before the Court of Appeals and of course Supreme Court.

I was somewhat involved in two US Court of Appeals cases which we sadly lost. One on Phoenix declaring swing clubs illegal and of course the big loss against the CA prostitution law. Also the Appeal of The Phoenix Goddess Temple which I attended most of the lower court proceedings and had over 200 updates on over the years after the big bust of 36 wonderful women, and kept telling her it was not about being a religion/church but prostitution and in my view she deserved to lose after very long many years of lower Court proceedings and lost on Appeal.

In the Temple case, after I had not attended for a few weeks, during a break the judge still at the bench noted my being back and that gee she missed seeing me !

 

[mandrill]

Our structure is as follows:

Bottom level = Ontario Court of Justice. It does judge alone trials.

2nd level = Superior Court of Justice. It does jury trials of serious cases and appeals of OCJ cases.

3rd level = Ontario Court of Appeal. It does appeals of some serious OCJ cases and all SCJ cases.

4th level = Supreme Court of Canada. It does appeals from the ON CA with leave or as of right if the ON CA bench split on the decision.

So both the OCJ and the SCJ can produce trial level decisions. And the SCJ can produce both trial and appellate decisions.

 

[lomotil]

We still need a ruling to strike down the criminalizing the John provisions. The idea that a service is legal to sell but not to buy (and makes you a criminal at that) is an absurdity and basically entrapment. Just legalize it, tax it, and use the revenue to go after traffickers, the real criminals.

The service is not legal to sell just those who sell it have immunity from prosecution which adds another complication and makes enforcement an oxymoron or open to ambiguous interpretation. There is no entrapment since those who purchase do so at their own risk in full knowledge of the laws of the land.

 

[glamphotographer]

How's the Harper clamp down on prostitution law working now?

 

[mandrill]

We still need a ruling to strike down the criminalizing the John provisions. The idea that a service is legal to sell but not to buy (and makes you a criminal at that) is an absurdity and basically entrapment. Just legalize it, tax it, and use the revenue to go after traffickers, the real criminals.

It's not entrapment. Entrapment is when an agent of the state gives you an opportunity to do something you wouldn't otherwise do and then arrests you. For instance undercover cop Joe phones citizen Bill 8 times inviting him to buy an illegal automatic firearm "real cheap". Eventually, Bill says "Sure, why not?" Entrapment.

If you're caught doing illegal shit of your own free will, it ain't entrapment.

The constitutional weakness is that C-36 is based on the Nordic Model, which has been laughed out of 2 courts in Canada already. The judges appear to agree it's horseshit, just like we do. And there are studies arguing that it forces women to deal with guys who refuse to give real names because what they want to do is criminal and that simply places the women more deeply at risk in a dangerous profession. That's the 1-2 Punch that's been working in court.

 

[mandrill]

How's the Harper clamp down on prostitution law working now?

Bet there are a lot of Sunday school teachers and other "Christians" from rural AB who are CPC party members who supported this pile of shit and who are looking very, very frowny right now.

 

[Soccersweeper]

It's not entrapment. Entrapment is when an agent of the state gives you an opportunity to do something you wouldn't otherwise do and then arrests you. For instance undercover cop Joe phones citizen Bill 8 times inviting him to buy an illegal automatic firearm "real cheap". Eventually, Bill says "Sure, why not?" Entrapment.

If you're caught doing illegal shit of your own free will, it ain't entrapment.

The constitutional weakness is that C-36 is based on the Nordic Model, which has been laughed out of 2 courts in Canada already. The judges appear to agree it's horseshit, just like we do. And there are studies arguing that it forces women to deal with guys who refuse to give real names because what they want to do is criminal and that simply places the women more deeply at risk in a dangerous profession. That's the 1-2 Punch that's been working in court.

It's a special kind of entrapment where you can sell but not buy. Hey boys, look what's available, tee hee.

 

[drlove]

So, where do things go from here?

 

[lomotil]

So, where do things go from here?

I think the pandemic has the government’s undivided attention. Ultimately unless the Supreme Court of Canada strikes down the ridiculous, unenforceable and dangerous to sex workers law, nothing will happen. No Prime Minister is likely to change the law unless compelled to, however Bill 36 seems to be heading to the SCC with the question being when ?

 

[mandrill]

Provincial government refuses to appeal any of these rulings to the Court of Appeal to avoid getting a province-wide authoritative ruling. Instead, they lose lower court decisions here and there.

 

[drlove]

Provincial government refuses to appeal any of these rulings to the Court of Appeal to avoid getting a province-wide authoritative ruling. Instead, they lose lower court decisions here and there.

That’s exactly why they’re doing it, and we can use that against them. For instance, by framing their decision not to appeal as an admission, it serves to strengthen the constitutional challenge. In turn, it’s more likely that the provision against purchasing will also be struck down. Why? Since in addition to the obvious argument that it makes things more dangerous for the ladies, the court will find that working together, hiring third parties, advertising etc. is de facto ‘legal’, whereas purchase is not. The sheer contradiction would be enough to have the remaining parts of the law struck down as well, lest a judge try to explain a plausible rationale for keeping it in while maintaining a straight face!

 

[Valcazar]

Provincial government refuses to appeal any of these rulings to the Court of Appeal to avoid getting a province-wide authoritative ruling. Instead, they lose lower court decisions here and there.

But in Canada you can actually bring something to the Court to decide (or offer a suggestion? I forget the exact wording) without having to force a case up through the appeal circuit, right?

 

[lomotil]

That’s exactly why they’re doing it, and we can use that against them. For instance, by framing their decision not to appeal as an admission, it serves to strengthen the constitutional challenge. In turn, it’s more likely that the provision against purchasing will also be struck down. Why? Since in addition to the obvious argument that it makes things more dangerous for the ladies, the court will find that working together, hiring third parties, advertising etc. is de facto ‘legal’, whereas purchase is not. The sheer contradiction would be enough to have the remaining parts of the law struck down as well, lest a judge try to explain a plausible rationale for keeping it in while maintaining a straight face!

The recent actions of the lower courts invariable will make a recipe for a logical, prudent and contemporary law on prostitution for the Feds to follow when the SCC strikes down Bill C36.