But I suppose the license is annual, so it must be a big expense to get it just for a few days, not to mention all the hassle of the formalities (they have an information course).
Bill C-36 Media Watchlist - you can help!
- Thread starter escapefromstress
- Start date
Be honest. Would you not want licensing of SP's and decriminalized prostitution for licensed agencies and SP's instead of C-36?
Licensing would at least make sure the women are not under 18. It could prevent some women from being trafficked.
In my post you quoted, I was talking about touring SP. For those it must be a hassle and expense to get licenses just for a few days. But I don't really know; maybe it's easy.
Licensing is better than prohibition, but still full of problems. Many independent ladies prefer to stay incognito, and many other do not fit whatever criteria are required. For example is she has a criminal record, and sometimes the minimum age is 21 not 18. Some will not want to wait three years before making some money. The black market is very big and we end up with the same enforcement issues as with prohibition.
If someone has a license, she can still be forced to do it by someone. It doesn't mean anything. It just shows that she's not an illegal immigrant and those are a very small minority of worker.
I think agencies who hire SP as employee should themselves be registered, but indies should not have to get a license. But anything would be better than C-36.
I quoted the most interesting part of this article. The part where this woman castrates all men. In this woman's article lies the problem. As I have been saying all along, this is a Feminist push to downgrade the sexual drive of all men. It is a man hater's issue being pushed by the feminists, not to make women more safe. They could care less. They want to make men less equal. How about men and boys in poverty or just people in poverty? No, in her world men have all of the money and women are sex slaves who would not eat if it were not for prostitution, so society must put these poor downtrodden women in houses and give them skills or just jobs.
This has been the push from the feminists left who hate men and the push from the religious right because, well, prostitution is just plain evil. So there you have it - the one issue where the certain type of feminists from the left and religious right converge and C-36 is born.
Swedish model has been a terrible failure according to UN report
Global Commission on HIV and the law
Start reading at page 38
Global Commission on HIV and the law
Start reading at page 38
Senate committe is conducting more interviews this week.
Thursday they have Gunilla Ekberg as a witness!!!
http://www.parl.gc.ca/sencommitteebusiness/CommitteeMeetingSchedule.aspx?parl=41&ses=2&Language=E&comm_id=1011&searchMeetings=1&fromDate=2014-10-23&toDate=2014-10-23
For those who don't know her, she's one of the Uber-Crazy Swedish radical feminists:
http://www.lauraagustin.com/satanic-sex-on-sunday-gunilla-ekberg-sex-war-and-extremist-feminism
Thursday they have Gunilla Ekberg as a witness!!!
http://www.parl.gc.ca/sencommitteebusiness/CommitteeMeetingSchedule.aspx?parl=41&ses=2&Language=E&comm_id=1011&searchMeetings=1&fromDate=2014-10-23&toDate=2014-10-23
For those who don't know her, she's one of the Uber-Crazy Swedish radical feminists:
http://www.lauraagustin.com/satanic-sex-on-sunday-gunilla-ekberg-sex-war-and-extremist-feminism
If I'm permitted some french vocabulary: une ostie de folle. The incarnation of authoritarian feminism. Dworkin inspired. Gender war.
Liberal Senator Mobina Jaffer speaking against Bill C-36
2nd Session, 41st Parliament,
Volume 149, Issue 87
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
The Honourable Noël A. Kinsella, Speaker
Criminal Code
Bill to Amend—Second Reading
On the Order:
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Batters, seconded by the Honourable Senator Beyak, for the second reading of Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
http://mobinajaffer.ca/senate-chambe...ing-bill-c-36/
2nd Session, 41st Parliament,
Volume 149, Issue 87
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
The Honourable Noël A. Kinsella, Speaker
Criminal Code
Bill to Amend—Second Reading
On the Order:
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Batters, seconded by the Honourable Senator Beyak, for the second reading of Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
http://mobinajaffer.ca/senate-chambe...ing-bill-c-36/
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 29, 2014
CBA warns of possible constitutional shortcomings in Bill C-36
OTTAWA – The Canadian Bar Association (CBA) cautions that Bill C-36, Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, introduced by the federal government in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, may fall short on constitutional grounds.
“Bill C-36 introduces a number of measures which on their face appear to comply with the central aspects of the Bedford decision,” says Ian Carter, Executive member of the CBA’s National Criminal Justice Section. “However, the practical application of some of these provisions undermines the spirit of the Bedford decision.”
The CBA submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs focuses on the constitutionality of new provisions, introduced to replace portions that the Supreme Court had declared unconstitutional in the Bedford decision. The particular sections scrutinized by the CBA include keeping a common bawdy-house, communication for the purpose of engaging in prostitution, and living off the avails of prostitution.
The federal legislation was introduced in June to comply with the one-year time limit called for by the Supreme Court.
In its submission, the CBA notes that a key consideration for the Supreme Court of Canada was whether the legislation makes working conditions for prostitutes more dangerous, and so violates section 7 of the Charter. Prostitutes are still engaged in a legal activity – selling sex for money – and section 7 guarantees life and liberty of the individual for all.
The CBA also says that limits on communication may contravene freedom of expression guarantees in the Charter. “We believe the Bill potentially imperils prostitutes going forward by restricting their ability to protect themselves in their inherently risky, but legal activities,” notes Ian Carter.
Ian Carter will present the CBA submission (.pdf) to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on Thursday, October 30, 2014 at 10:30 am in Room 257, East Block.
The Canadian Bar Association is dedicated to supporting the rule of law, improvements in the law, and the administration of justice. Some 37,000 lawyers, law teachers, and law students from across Canada are members."
http://www.cba.org/CBA/news/2014_rel...10-29-c36.aspx
The CBA testifies tomorrow morning!
October 29, 2014
CBA warns of possible constitutional shortcomings in Bill C-36
OTTAWA – The Canadian Bar Association (CBA) cautions that Bill C-36, Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, introduced by the federal government in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, may fall short on constitutional grounds.
“Bill C-36 introduces a number of measures which on their face appear to comply with the central aspects of the Bedford decision,” says Ian Carter, Executive member of the CBA’s National Criminal Justice Section. “However, the practical application of some of these provisions undermines the spirit of the Bedford decision.”
The CBA submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs focuses on the constitutionality of new provisions, introduced to replace portions that the Supreme Court had declared unconstitutional in the Bedford decision. The particular sections scrutinized by the CBA include keeping a common bawdy-house, communication for the purpose of engaging in prostitution, and living off the avails of prostitution.
The federal legislation was introduced in June to comply with the one-year time limit called for by the Supreme Court.
In its submission, the CBA notes that a key consideration for the Supreme Court of Canada was whether the legislation makes working conditions for prostitutes more dangerous, and so violates section 7 of the Charter. Prostitutes are still engaged in a legal activity – selling sex for money – and section 7 guarantees life and liberty of the individual for all.
The CBA also says that limits on communication may contravene freedom of expression guarantees in the Charter. “We believe the Bill potentially imperils prostitutes going forward by restricting their ability to protect themselves in their inherently risky, but legal activities,” notes Ian Carter.
Ian Carter will present the CBA submission (.pdf) to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on Thursday, October 30, 2014 at 10:30 am in Room 257, East Block.
The Canadian Bar Association is dedicated to supporting the rule of law, improvements in the law, and the administration of justice. Some 37,000 lawyers, law teachers, and law students from across Canada are members."
http://www.cba.org/CBA/news/2014_rel...10-29-c36.aspx
The CBA testifies tomorrow morning!
Concerns mount over banned sex ads
Indoor sex worker advocates say the federal government’s new prostitution laws will cause more harm than good.
They are especially concerned about Bill C-36’s prohibition on the advertisement of sexual services, which indoor sex work relies on due to its discrete nature.
The Supreme Court of Canada found that sex work is safest when practiced from a fixed indoor location. If these venues are shut down women will be forced to work on the street or in their homes.
“When you take away a person’s ability to advertise it leads to more violence because there is less communication,” said Alison Clancey, the executive director of SWAN (Supporting Women’s Alternatives Network).
SWAN has been providing outreach to largely Asian newcomer, migrant, and immigrant indoor sex workers in Vancouver for the past ten years.
Outreach organizations like SWAN also use these advertisement spaces to connect with and give information and support to sex workers, providing a second line of defence.
If these avenues of access are shut down, “it will prevent us from reaching out, connecting, and supporting,” Clancey said.
As a preemptive response the organization has increased spending on advertising to raise their profile while these spaces are still open.
There are also legal concerns about the new legislation, particularly uncertainty about how they will be interpreted.
Lisa Kerr, a doctoral candidate in law at New York University, noted the ambiguity of the law, particularly in defining who can and cannot advertise.
The confusing nature of the legislation poses a challenge to publications that print advertisements for sexual services. Many publishers are unclear about which advertisements are considered legal and how the laws will be enforced.
“It’s a very dangerous precedent requiring newspapers to enforce the law,” stated John Hinds, the CEO of the Canadian Community Newspapers Association.
What’s more, he added, “the court is clear that prostitution is not illegal in this country and most legal services are able to advertise.”
It remains unclear how these laws will be interpreted or enforced as they leave a great deal of power to prosecutors. The law has passed its third reading and is anticipated to pass through the Senate within a month.
Lisa Kerr expects that if passed, the law will be immediately challenged by the highly organized sex work law reform community.
“They’re not going to wait one more minute where women’s lives are in danger,” she said.
http://thethunderbird.ca/2014/10/29/...anned-sex-ads/
Indoor sex worker advocates say the federal government’s new prostitution laws will cause more harm than good.
They are especially concerned about Bill C-36’s prohibition on the advertisement of sexual services, which indoor sex work relies on due to its discrete nature.
The Supreme Court of Canada found that sex work is safest when practiced from a fixed indoor location. If these venues are shut down women will be forced to work on the street or in their homes.
“When you take away a person’s ability to advertise it leads to more violence because there is less communication,” said Alison Clancey, the executive director of SWAN (Supporting Women’s Alternatives Network).
SWAN has been providing outreach to largely Asian newcomer, migrant, and immigrant indoor sex workers in Vancouver for the past ten years.
Outreach organizations like SWAN also use these advertisement spaces to connect with and give information and support to sex workers, providing a second line of defence.
If these avenues of access are shut down, “it will prevent us from reaching out, connecting, and supporting,” Clancey said.
As a preemptive response the organization has increased spending on advertising to raise their profile while these spaces are still open.
There are also legal concerns about the new legislation, particularly uncertainty about how they will be interpreted.
Lisa Kerr, a doctoral candidate in law at New York University, noted the ambiguity of the law, particularly in defining who can and cannot advertise.
The confusing nature of the legislation poses a challenge to publications that print advertisements for sexual services. Many publishers are unclear about which advertisements are considered legal and how the laws will be enforced.
“It’s a very dangerous precedent requiring newspapers to enforce the law,” stated John Hinds, the CEO of the Canadian Community Newspapers Association.
What’s more, he added, “the court is clear that prostitution is not illegal in this country and most legal services are able to advertise.”
It remains unclear how these laws will be interpreted or enforced as they leave a great deal of power to prosecutors. The law has passed its third reading and is anticipated to pass through the Senate within a month.
Lisa Kerr expects that if passed, the law will be immediately challenged by the highly organized sex work law reform community.
“They’re not going to wait one more minute where women’s lives are in danger,” she said.
http://thethunderbird.ca/2014/10/29/...anned-sex-ads/
mistressmatisse @mistressmatisse 27m27 minutes ago
Am I really reading that Canadian Senate discussions of #c36 include wanting to force sex workers into faith-based rehab camps? WTF?
Holly In Griffith @HollyInAlbury 1h1 hour ago
They want to send sex workers to a CAMP! Wtf ??? We need to be sent away and brainwashed??
#c36
Emily Muse @Miss_Emily_Muse 35m35 minutes ago
Just watched the Senate. Most fucked up hearing to-date! Forced rehab camps for SWers!? Fucking crazy. Wtf Canada!?!? #c36
https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=#C36&src=tyah
Am I really reading that Canadian Senate discussions of #c36 include wanting to force sex workers into faith-based rehab camps? WTF?
Holly In Griffith @HollyInAlbury 1h1 hour ago
They want to send sex workers to a CAMP! Wtf ??? We need to be sent away and brainwashed??
#c36
Emily Muse @Miss_Emily_Muse 35m35 minutes ago
Just watched the Senate. Most fucked up hearing to-date! Forced rehab camps for SWers!? Fucking crazy. Wtf Canada!?!? #c36
https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=#C36&src=tyah
You can to listen to, or watch recordings of the Senate Meetings from the last 2 days here:
Title LCJC Meeting No. 45
Location Room 257, East Block
Event Date Wednesday, Oct 29, 2014
Actual Start Time Wednesday, Oct 29, 04:11 PM EDT
Actual End Time Wednesday, Oct 29, 06:22 PM EDT
Status Adjourned
Description Meeting No. 45 Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Canada v. Bedford)
http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/Guide.as...46&Language=E#
Title LCJC Meeting No. 46
Location Room 257, East Block
Event Date Thursday, Oct 30, 2014
Actual Start Time Thursday, Oct 30, 10:24 AM EDT
Actual End Time Thursday, Oct 30, 12:12 PM EDT
Status Adjourned
Description Meeting No. 46 Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Canada v. Bedford)
Consideration of a draft agenda (future business)
http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/Guide.as...46&Language=E#
Title LCJC Meeting No. 45
Location Room 257, East Block
Event Date Wednesday, Oct 29, 2014
Actual Start Time Wednesday, Oct 29, 04:11 PM EDT
Actual End Time Wednesday, Oct 29, 06:22 PM EDT
Status Adjourned
Description Meeting No. 45 Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Canada v. Bedford)
- Edward Herold, Professor Emeritus, University of Guelph (As an Individual)
- Bernard Lerhe (As an Individual)
- Barbara Gosse, Senior Director, Research, Policy and Innovation (Canadian Women's Foundation)
- The Honourable Andrew Swan, M.L.A., Minister of Justice and Attorney General (Government of Manitoba)
http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/Guide.as...46&Language=E#
Title LCJC Meeting No. 46
Location Room 257, East Block
Event Date Thursday, Oct 30, 2014
Actual Start Time Thursday, Oct 30, 10:24 AM EDT
Actual End Time Thursday, Oct 30, 12:12 PM EDT
Status Adjourned
Description Meeting No. 46 Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Canada v. Bedford)
- Ian M. Carter, Member of the Executive, Criminal Justice Section (Canadian Bar Association)
- Gunilla S. Ekberg, Lawyer, University of Glasgow School of Law (As an Individual)
- Gaylene Schellenberg, Lawyer, Legislation and Law Reform (Canadian Bar Association)
Consideration of a draft agenda (future business)
http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/Guide.as...46&Language=E#
Bill C-36 passed 3rd reading in the Senate today, so all it needs now is Royal Assent.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/Bill...billId=6635303
http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/Bill...billId=6635303
Senate passes controversial prostitution legislation C-36
The government’s controversial anti-prostitution legislation, Bill C-36, has passed the Senate without changes.
It’s now on track to get royal assent before the end of the year, which would meet a deadline set by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Late last year, the Supreme Court struck down the current prostitution laws as unconstitutional, ruling that they created a dangerous environment for sex workers and impeded their ability to protect themselves.
Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, makes the purchase of sexual services a criminal offence, as well as criminalizes the activity of third parties who financially benefit from the exploitation of others through prostitution.
Soon after the Senate passed C-36, Sex Professionals of Canada (SPOC) posted a statement on its website saying the new laws would fail to ensure the safety of sex workers.
“Keeping criminalization in place will continue the stigma and social exclusion of sex workers,” it said.
Justice Minister Peter MacKay has insisted C-36 will ensure safer conditions for sex workers by cracking down on those who exploit them.
Last September, MacKay said “it treats sellers as victims of sexual exploitation, victims who need assistance in leaving prostitution and not punishment for the exploitation they've endured."
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/senat...c-36-1.2087104
The government’s controversial anti-prostitution legislation, Bill C-36, has passed the Senate without changes.
It’s now on track to get royal assent before the end of the year, which would meet a deadline set by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Late last year, the Supreme Court struck down the current prostitution laws as unconstitutional, ruling that they created a dangerous environment for sex workers and impeded their ability to protect themselves.
Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, makes the purchase of sexual services a criminal offence, as well as criminalizes the activity of third parties who financially benefit from the exploitation of others through prostitution.
Soon after the Senate passed C-36, Sex Professionals of Canada (SPOC) posted a statement on its website saying the new laws would fail to ensure the safety of sex workers.
“Keeping criminalization in place will continue the stigma and social exclusion of sex workers,” it said.
Justice Minister Peter MacKay has insisted C-36 will ensure safer conditions for sex workers by cracking down on those who exploit them.
Last September, MacKay said “it treats sellers as victims of sexual exploitation, victims who need assistance in leaving prostitution and not punishment for the exploitation they've endured."
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/senat...c-36-1.2087104
Tory prostitution bill gets Senate approval
A Conservative bill aimed at restricting the sex trade and discouraging prostitution has passed the Senate, leaving it one step away from becoming law despite warnings it will endanger sex workers and could ultimately be found unconstitutional.
Bill C-36, passed Tuesday, was tabled after the Supreme Court struck down Canada’s prostitution laws in its Bedford ruling last December. The court found the laws violated sex workers’ Charter rights to safety, and gave the government one year to put in place new laws.
In turn, C-36 largely criminalizes the buying of sex, rather than the selling, but could still lead to sex workers being charged by placing restrictions on when they can discuss a transaction. Critics, as such, have warned the new bill is also unconstitutional because it will once again endanger sex workers.
Nonetheless, the bill passed its third reading vote in the Senate on Tuesday, unaltered from the version that passed the House of Commons on Oct. 6. It now only needs royal assent, a formality, to become law before the old laws expire next month.
However, sex workers warn Bill C-36 will put them in harm’s way by limiting their ability to speak with, and screen, potential clients, thus exposing them to abuse – a part of the bill that many have warned is vulnerable to a Charter challenge. The bill also makes it illegal to publish an advertisement by a sex worker, restricting a method some use to safely select clients.
“I foresee that this is going to create a lot of violence,” said Valerie Scott, one of three sex workers behind the Bedford case. “We won’t know who we’re seeing. We’ll have to work alone and we’ll have to remain untraceable, isolated from each other. That combination is a setup for predators pretending to be our clients.”
Bill C-36 passed Tuesday after Conservative senators voted down an amendment that would have removed any criminal penalty aimed at sex workers themselves. Those penalties for discussing a sale near a school, daycare or playground remain in the bill. Bill C-36 ultimately passed “on division,” meaning senators agreed that a majority supported it but that it was not unanimous. They didn’t vote individually.
The bill will “significantly decrease and ultimately work towards the abolition of the demand for sexual services,” Conservative Senator Denise Batters said, speaking on her party’s behalf. She said the decision “responds to” the Bedford ruling, a notion Senate Liberal Mobina Jaffer disagreed with. “Consensual adult sex workers will not be safe under this bill as it currently stands,” Ms. Jaffer said during Senate debate.
Ms. Scott echoed that in an interview, saying Bill C-36 will endanger sex workers even though its penalties are mostly aimed at clients.
“What it means to me is Parliament does not take the Supreme Court of Canada’s opinion seriously,” Ms. Scott said, adding: “The old regime made it impossible for us to work in a safe way … this is the exact same thing, with different words.”
A legal challenge could be mounted on some parts of the bill as soon as it takes effect, but it may be prudent to wait for evidence to support a case against other parts of it, said Alan Young, a professor at York University’s Osgoode Hall Law School who represented Ms. Scott in the Bedford case.
“It becomes a strategic choice as to whether or not [to challenge] the obviously constitutionally flawed sections and leave the trickier ones for a later date … or whether to roll the dice and try to knock everything out on the outset,” Prof. Young said. He believes “a brain dead monkey should be able to successfully challenge” some parts of the bill, while others are more nuanced.
Sex workers say they will be at risk in the interim – as evidence is gathered for any legal challenge, or as any challenge works its way through the courts.
Follow Josh Wingrove on Twitter: @josh_wingrove
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...on-bill-gets-senate-approval/article21450839/
A Conservative bill aimed at restricting the sex trade and discouraging prostitution has passed the Senate, leaving it one step away from becoming law despite warnings it will endanger sex workers and could ultimately be found unconstitutional.
Bill C-36, passed Tuesday, was tabled after the Supreme Court struck down Canada’s prostitution laws in its Bedford ruling last December. The court found the laws violated sex workers’ Charter rights to safety, and gave the government one year to put in place new laws.
In turn, C-36 largely criminalizes the buying of sex, rather than the selling, but could still lead to sex workers being charged by placing restrictions on when they can discuss a transaction. Critics, as such, have warned the new bill is also unconstitutional because it will once again endanger sex workers.
Nonetheless, the bill passed its third reading vote in the Senate on Tuesday, unaltered from the version that passed the House of Commons on Oct. 6. It now only needs royal assent, a formality, to become law before the old laws expire next month.
However, sex workers warn Bill C-36 will put them in harm’s way by limiting their ability to speak with, and screen, potential clients, thus exposing them to abuse – a part of the bill that many have warned is vulnerable to a Charter challenge. The bill also makes it illegal to publish an advertisement by a sex worker, restricting a method some use to safely select clients.
“I foresee that this is going to create a lot of violence,” said Valerie Scott, one of three sex workers behind the Bedford case. “We won’t know who we’re seeing. We’ll have to work alone and we’ll have to remain untraceable, isolated from each other. That combination is a setup for predators pretending to be our clients.”
Bill C-36 passed Tuesday after Conservative senators voted down an amendment that would have removed any criminal penalty aimed at sex workers themselves. Those penalties for discussing a sale near a school, daycare or playground remain in the bill. Bill C-36 ultimately passed “on division,” meaning senators agreed that a majority supported it but that it was not unanimous. They didn’t vote individually.
The bill will “significantly decrease and ultimately work towards the abolition of the demand for sexual services,” Conservative Senator Denise Batters said, speaking on her party’s behalf. She said the decision “responds to” the Bedford ruling, a notion Senate Liberal Mobina Jaffer disagreed with. “Consensual adult sex workers will not be safe under this bill as it currently stands,” Ms. Jaffer said during Senate debate.
Ms. Scott echoed that in an interview, saying Bill C-36 will endanger sex workers even though its penalties are mostly aimed at clients.
“What it means to me is Parliament does not take the Supreme Court of Canada’s opinion seriously,” Ms. Scott said, adding: “The old regime made it impossible for us to work in a safe way … this is the exact same thing, with different words.”
A legal challenge could be mounted on some parts of the bill as soon as it takes effect, but it may be prudent to wait for evidence to support a case against other parts of it, said Alan Young, a professor at York University’s Osgoode Hall Law School who represented Ms. Scott in the Bedford case.
“It becomes a strategic choice as to whether or not [to challenge] the obviously constitutionally flawed sections and leave the trickier ones for a later date … or whether to roll the dice and try to knock everything out on the outset,” Prof. Young said. He believes “a brain dead monkey should be able to successfully challenge” some parts of the bill, while others are more nuanced.
Sex workers say they will be at risk in the interim – as evidence is gathered for any legal challenge, or as any challenge works its way through the courts.
Follow Josh Wingrove on Twitter: @josh_wingrove
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...on-bill-gets-senate-approval/article21450839/
I received an email from the Canadian Alliance For Sex Work Law Reform ...
Hello all:
Bill C-36 passed its third reading in Senate on Tuesday, with no amendments. It will receive royal assent, likely this Thursday. This means that Bill C-36 becomes law this week. Stay safe.
*****
Bonjour tout le monde:
C-36 a été son troisième lecture au sénat mardi, avec aucune amendments. Ca va recevoir l’étape royale, probablement cet jeudi. Ca veut dire que C-36 devient loi cette semaine. Soyez sécuritaire.
Hello all:
Bill C-36 passed its third reading in Senate on Tuesday, with no amendments. It will receive royal assent, likely this Thursday. This means that Bill C-36 becomes law this week. Stay safe.
*****
Bonjour tout le monde:
C-36 a été son troisième lecture au sénat mardi, avec aucune amendments. Ca va recevoir l’étape royale, probablement cet jeudi. Ca veut dire que C-36 devient loi cette semaine. Soyez sécuritaire.
C-36
An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
Short Title
Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act
Sponsor
Minister of Justice
Last Stage Completed
Royal Assent (2014-11-06)
Progress:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/legisinfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&billId=6635303
An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
Short Title
Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act
Sponsor
Minister of Justice
Last Stage Completed
Royal Assent (2014-11-06)
Progress:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/legisinfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&billId=6635303
Not to be a nitpicker, but criminals are people too.
Yay!! Now I can remove that parliament link from my bookmarks!
A recent summary of C-36 by the Pivot Legal Society; short and to the point:
http://www.pivotlegal.org/bill_c_36_a_backgrounder
Bill C-36: A backgrounder
Written by Kevin Hollett on November 06, 2014
Bill C-36: An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
The Government of Canada has consistently misrepresented Bill C-36 by saying that this legislation only targets clients and exploitive third parties, while not criminalizing sex workers and others who may enhance sex workers’ safety. In fact, Bill C-36 will result in sweeping criminalization of the sex industry, targeting sex workers, clients, and third parties, and will have the effect of increasing sex workers’ vulnerability to violence and other forms of abuse.
Bill C-36 targets sex workers, clients, and third parties in various ways and will have the following harmful effects:
1- The prohibitions on public communication (sections 213 and 286.1(1)) will result in displacement of street-based sex workers to dangerous, isolated areas where they are unable to properly screen clients and will continue to face barriers to police protection.
2- Due to the prohibition on the purchase of sexual services (section 286.1(1)), sex workers will be unable to properly screen clients, will have diminished access to police protection, and will be unable to work in safe indoor venues because it will be against the law for their clients to attend their place of business.
3- The safety of sex workers will be impacted by the amended procuring provision (section 286.3(1)), which is extremely broad and will capture many safety-enhancing relationships with third parties (such as managers, drivers, and booking agents). Third parties are also criminalized by the prohibition on materially benefitting from another person’s sex work (section 286.2(1), (3), (4), (5), and (6)), which captures people who are in a management role, including those who increase the safety of sex workers. In addition to being unnecessarily vague, this provision is extremely complicated, making it virtually impossible to know if a third party is captured by the law or not.
4- Sex workers’ safety will be impaired because it will be virtually impossible to work indoors when sex workers cannot promote their services. The advertising ban (section 286.4) targets newspapers, websites, magazines, and other forms of media that may carry sex industry ads, third parties who advertise other people’s sexual services, and sex workers who wish to advertise collectively.
Bill C-36 proposes a regime of total criminalization that will recreate and exacerbate all of the harms faced by sex workers under the provisions that were at issue in Canada v. Bedford. Bill C-36 is an unconstitutional variation of the recently struck laws, and it imposes the same or increased danger, criminalization, and stigma on sex workers.
http://www.pivotlegal.org/bill_c_36_a_backgrounder
Bill C-36: A backgrounder
Written by Kevin Hollett on November 06, 2014
Bill C-36: An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
The Government of Canada has consistently misrepresented Bill C-36 by saying that this legislation only targets clients and exploitive third parties, while not criminalizing sex workers and others who may enhance sex workers’ safety. In fact, Bill C-36 will result in sweeping criminalization of the sex industry, targeting sex workers, clients, and third parties, and will have the effect of increasing sex workers’ vulnerability to violence and other forms of abuse.
Bill C-36 targets sex workers, clients, and third parties in various ways and will have the following harmful effects:
1- The prohibitions on public communication (sections 213 and 286.1(1)) will result in displacement of street-based sex workers to dangerous, isolated areas where they are unable to properly screen clients and will continue to face barriers to police protection.
2- Due to the prohibition on the purchase of sexual services (section 286.1(1)), sex workers will be unable to properly screen clients, will have diminished access to police protection, and will be unable to work in safe indoor venues because it will be against the law for their clients to attend their place of business.
3- The safety of sex workers will be impacted by the amended procuring provision (section 286.3(1)), which is extremely broad and will capture many safety-enhancing relationships with third parties (such as managers, drivers, and booking agents). Third parties are also criminalized by the prohibition on materially benefitting from another person’s sex work (section 286.2(1), (3), (4), (5), and (6)), which captures people who are in a management role, including those who increase the safety of sex workers. In addition to being unnecessarily vague, this provision is extremely complicated, making it virtually impossible to know if a third party is captured by the law or not.
4- Sex workers’ safety will be impaired because it will be virtually impossible to work indoors when sex workers cannot promote their services. The advertising ban (section 286.4) targets newspapers, websites, magazines, and other forms of media that may carry sex industry ads, third parties who advertise other people’s sexual services, and sex workers who wish to advertise collectively.
Bill C-36 proposes a regime of total criminalization that will recreate and exacerbate all of the harms faced by sex workers under the provisions that were at issue in Canada v. Bedford. Bill C-36 is an unconstitutional variation of the recently struck laws, and it imposes the same or increased danger, criminalization, and stigma on sex workers.
Similar threads
