A very funny article about the absurdity of the bill:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/columnists/dont-piano-teachers-deserve-the-same-protection-as-prostitutes/article19043328/
The peanuts farmer has spoken.....
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jim...dvice-on-updating-prostitution-laws-1.2654394
Would it be ure opinion that the mayor of Mtl and LE won't act until all the dust has settled
The peanuts farmer has spoken.....
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jim...dvice-on-updating-prostitution-laws-1.2654394
Thought the same. If nothing else, demonstrates the SCC's continued willingness to challenge the unconstitutional nature of Harper's bullshit proposals.A good news: yesterday, the Supreme Court strikes again, by ruling that the police need a warrant to obtain personal info from internet providers. This will be important for bill C-13, but probably also for the enforcement of C-36.
I can only hope, that if even charges are laid once passed, allegations in court will be difficult to prove and cases thrown out.The bill is so broad and confusing so it's very hard to predict how this could be enforced. Technically, advertisement for any form of sexual service could be illegal, including sex therapists and sex shops. Just banning an ad on a presumption would probably not stand up in court. Unless an ad says ''I will have sex with you for $$$'', I don't see how they can ban escort ads without banning sex therapists and regular masseuses. That would be discrimination.
I kind of hope that the government passes the law as it is now, without amendments. It's so broad and vague as to be almost useless.