Montreal Escorts

It's Official Canada has adopted Nordic Model Prostitution Law

man77777

Well-Known Member
Jul 28, 2011
1,683
37
48
Well siocnarf, as you know Something that is unfair is not necessary unconstitutional. And anyway they always find a way to get around the consitutionnality to impose their ideology...
 

hungry101

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2007
5,838
546
113
Yep Man, I read Animal Farm.
 

CLOUD 500

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2005
7,088
4,031
113
Not just that they are more concerned with preserving traditional family and religious values. Preserving tradition is more important then anything else. I find this law very sexist and paternalistic.
 

BookerL

Gorgeous ladies Fanatic
Apr 29, 2014
5,789
7
0
Northern emisphere
Common courtesy would have been to at least say that he recognizes that different people and nations have different views and approaches to this difficult subject. You can just read the Australian prime minister's mind while listening to Harper. I am sure he was thinking, "What time is the asshole's flight back to Canada."
I guess its better not take lessons of diplomatic conduct with the very Honorable Prime Minister of Canada Mister Stephen Harper ????
Regards all
 

Valcazar

Well-Known Member
Mar 6, 2013
860
256
83
I guess its better not take lessons of diplomatic conduct with the very Honorable Prime Minister of Canada Mister Stephen Harper ????l

I think that goes without saying. I know Australia has legal brothels. I think New Zealand is where it has been completely decriminalized?
 

Siocnarf

New Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,796
2
0
Snuggletown
Prostitution is legal in Australia, but different provinces have different regulations. I also found that Harper comment weird. But it was not in Australia; it was the Australian PM visiting Canada. I think it's just a way of indirectly telling Australia not to get involved in the debate.

Another point about this bill is that it would also make porn technically illegal, unless it's done and distributed for free. It would be illegal to pay someone for sex anywhere, under any circumstances. There is nothing that says it will be legal if there is a camera running. Of course, they probably won't enforce it like that at present, but it opens the door for further bans and restrictions down the road. This law is a tool that could be used to ban just about anything. Like their bill on cyberbullying it has powers that go way beyond it's stated goal.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/06/11/bill-c36-magazines-sex-shops_n_5481477.html

The debate on C-36 in the House of Commons is supposed to be today and/or tomorrow. The NPD is already against, but I'm curious to see where the liberals will stand. MacKay is hoping to have the bill sent to Committee for the summer break.
 

man77777

Well-Known Member
Jul 28, 2011
1,683
37
48
When do you think the law will start to be applied ? How much time do we have to hobby serenely ?
 

ezekiel

Member
Aug 27, 2010
452
0
16
Habs Nation!
We probably have at least until christmas but making a such prediction is highly speculative
 

Siocnarf

New Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,796
2
0
Snuggletown
Also, the law will be in effect 30 days after it receives the royal thumbs up. That will give time to make plans. Right on times for Valentine's day maybe? :)
 

Siocnarf

New Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,796
2
0
Snuggletown
I'm not an expert on survey, but I don't think the split is very dramatic (40% vs 50%, plus 10% undecided).
What is striking is people with higher education are much more in favor of legalitsation and oppose the law.
However, I would be curious to know how many of the people polled actually READ the bill and understand it. Also, the government have another scientific poll that they are keeping secret.

Anyway, since when are we supposed to ask uninformed people how to manage an industry? This is not about getting the right solution for the problem. It's just politic, but even their base is not happy with this bill.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/06/11/bill-c36-prostitution-peter-mackay_n_5484530.html
 

Siocnarf

New Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,796
2
0
Snuggletown
I think the judges can reject the Preamble if it limits the other constitutional rights of free speakers and sex workers.
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ott...is-a-tough-sell-but-likely-is-constitutional/

From what I read elsewhere, the Preamble doesn't matter.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/06/10/prostitution-bill-conservatives-government-mackay_n_5479045.html
Selling is legal, therefore the prostitutes have constitutional rights. It doesn't matter what the preamble says. If selling is not criminal then it is a legal activity. If selling was fully criminalize that would be a completely different matter.

The SCC said screening clients was a vital tool and this law still prevents prostitutes from doing that. The preamble means the law is less arbitrary, but it does not mean that it is not overbroad and grossly-disproportionate.

The aim of the law has to be weighted with it's consequences. We know this kind of law results in more prostitutes being killed. Unless the government can prove that prostitution itself causes harms that are more important than the life of these people, then the law will fail. On one side you have ideology, without any factual support; on the other side you have life and death consequences that have already been acknowledged by the court.

If it was to be reviewed by the present-day SCC, I'm sure it would get destroyed right away (in ten years, who knows what the judges would decide?)
 

hungry101

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2007
5,838
546
113
What about the male gigolo? Is he afforded the same protection? Is it OK for him to sell?
 

Siocnarf

New Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,796
2
0
Snuggletown
Once again, the argument hinges on the fact that prostitution is now a crime. But that's not true. Only half of it is a crime. The law still violates the constitutional rights of the legal half. The preamble changes the angle of a future challenge, but the bottom line is exactly the same.
 

anon_vlad

Well-Known Member
Apr 29, 2004
1,551
526
113
Visit site
Much as I am opposed to any law which limits the freedom of consenting adults, it is legal for an individual to buy a lottery ticket, but not to create one and sell it.

As this is far from the only example in which one half of a transaction is legal, the penalizing of buying only would not be grounds to invalidate the law.
 

Siocnarf

New Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,796
2
0
Snuggletown
In your example, the lottery ticket is a regulated product, because lottery itself is a regulated activity. You need proper qualifications to run a lottery. Same with cigarettes, alcohol, medical operations, vehicles, etc.

Sex between adults is not a regulated activity. Anybody can do it and the government has no authority in people's sex lives.

By the way, the problem is not exactly with the fact that buying is illegal. The problem is that this pushes the legal half into clandestinity, where they are at higher risk of violence. If there was no ill effect on the seller, it would not invalidate the law.

Even people who don't like prostitution should be afraid of this law. If they can ban prostitution by simply claiming it is harmful to society, what's stopping them from doing the same with free sex next?
 

Fred Zed

Administrator
Mar 11, 2003
1,770
337
83
UP ABOVE SMILING
In your example, the lottery ticket is a regulated product, because lottery itself is a regulated activity. You need proper qualifications to run a lottery. Same with cigarettes, alcohol, medical operations, vehicles, etc.

Sex between adults is not a regulated activity. Anybody can do it and the government has no authority in people's sex lives.

By the way, the problem is not exactly with the fact that buying is illegal. The problem is that this pushes the legal half into clandestinity, where they are at higher risk of violence. If there was no ill effect on the seller, it would not invalidate the law.

Even people who don't like prostitution should be afraid of this law. If they can ban prostitution by simply claiming it is harmful to society, what's stopping them from doing the same with free sex next?

Correct. Or banning alcohol or banning cigarettes ? How about banning alcohol advertising too ?
 

Siocnarf

New Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,796
2
0
Snuggletown
The very special ideology is that it's not the sex activity that is dangerous. It's the *selling* of it that is dangerous to the seller. Doing sex for any other reason is acceptable. Selling any other kind of legal activity is fine, no matter how degrading.

The only reason they can get away with this is that people are already programmed to believe it. It was the same with homosexuality. Once people understood that it was not dangerous or contagious it was accepted pretty quickly. Prohibition is bound to lose in the end, because they cannot shame sex workers into silence the way they could before.
 

man77777

Well-Known Member
Jul 28, 2011
1,683
37
48
You didn't get it guys, they just want to save your soul...
 

Siocnarf

New Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,796
2
0
Snuggletown
I know, but for political reasons they can't say it directly anymore. That's why they have to pretend to believe in these crazy ''modern'' arguments. They can't use religion as a reason, but they can sell it as part of the healing process. Religion is one thing that is definitely ok to commodify. Personnally, I don't see why people pay for bibles when you can get free ones in hotel rooms.
 
Toronto Escorts