It's Official Canada has adopted Nordic Model Prostitution Law

[snoodle]

Funny how the conservatives want to make it illegal to have sex but like to make it easier to buy a gun...

I guess that says something about how sick these bastard are...:crazy:

 

[hungry101]

Snoodle - if they can get 51% of the people to vote for them they would change the state language to Swedish and declare that everyone must change their underwear 6 times a day.

 

[Siocnarf]

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/

 

[gurgeh85]

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/

Brilliant!

 

[anon_vlad]

I remember watching a funny sketch in which a prostitute sold a lapel pin for $200 to her client. She expressed her gratitude to him for the purchase by having sex with him for free.

I suggest that each agency start ordering pins to represent their business.

 

[Siocnarf]

She would not have had sex with you, but for the purchase of the pin. Therefore, you bought sex from her by helping her sell her pins. We can twist the words of the law anyway we want, but the police can do the same. There is nothing, short of being on a different continent, that they cannot interpret as ''attempting to purchase sex''. Fortunately, to convict someone it takes evidence.

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.

 

[Joe.t]

Sex workers support dance at Montreal's Peace Park -

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montr...dance-against-new-prostitution-bill-1.2675934

 

[Siocnarf]

This afternoon C-36 passed second reading vote. The government imposed a very short time for debate, so there was almost no discussion by the members of parliament.

All opposition parties voted against, except for independant Mourani and Del Mastro
Yes:139; No:117

It will now be sent to the Justice Committee that will study it and propose amendments (which will most likely be voted down by the government).

 

[roof2013]

When and how does the Supreme Court get involved? Or does it?......

 

[Siocnarf]

The government will not send the bill to the supreme court for evaluation, so someone will have to challenge the new law once it is passed.
This challenge can be initiated by someone who is affected by the law. Also people can challenge the law if it limits any of their rights. This takes time and costs a lot of money.
I think it's too early to say how and when this will end up in front of the court.

 

[roof2013]

Would it be ure opinion that the mayor of Mtl and LE won't act until all the dust has settled

 

[centaurus]

The peanuts farmer has spoken.....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jim...dvice-on-updating-prostitution-laws-1.2654394

 

[snoodle]

The peanuts farmer has spoken.....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jim...dvice-on-updating-prostitution-laws-1.2654394

The peanut farmer needs to shut his fucking hole

 

[Siocnarf]

Would it be ure opinion that the mayor of Mtl and LE won't act until all the dust has settled

The new law is in fact not that different from the old laws, so I don't think the police will change the way they operate. If everyone says the law is unconstitutional and doomed to fail, I would imagine it will not be enforced very strongly during the time that it is valid (unless in places where you have very zealous police and prosecutors.)

The main new thing is the ban on advertising. 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.

I am not a legal expert and this is just my own speculation.

 

[hungry101]

The peanuts farmer has spoken.....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jim...dvice-on-updating-prostitution-laws-1.2654394

He is considered the worst president in the history of the United States until Obama.

I'm telling you, this new law is going to have broad appeal from the left and right.

A white male enjoying sex is not a good thing.

 

[legmann]

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.

Thought the same. If nothing else, demonstrates the SCC's continued willingness to challenge the unconstitutional nature of Harper's bullshit proposals.

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.

I can only hope, that if even charges are laid once passed, allegations in court will be difficult to prove and cases thrown out.

 

[BookerL]

Originally Posted by Siocnarf
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.
THE QUESTION then how those the police obtains a warrant ???They certainly no how, the crown attorneys works for the police they are Criminal Law expert don't you think?
i had warrants issued against me with false pretext !!!they where quash but I was still arrested and cost me defense lawyer fees!!!
Cant wait to see final wording of c-36 I will definitely have a talk with my Criminal Lawyers !!
everyone should do the same when your freedom is at risk better safe then sorry !!!!

 

[Siocnarf]

For an agency it probably doesn't change much, because they can easily get a warrant. But for every client they can't get warrant for thousands and thousands of random people. It means they can't just have access to everyones e-mails and info and use it as evidence. They could still get the info illegally, but they could not use it as evidence. That's my understanding.

 

[daydreamer41]

Well, if a Judge needs to sign a warrant for every person's email they want to investigate, which includes having the judge review the petition for the warrant, etc., it probably will take the winds out of the government's sails in investigating prostitution via electronic data methods. No?

 

[Siocnarf]

At the level of the client I think it would take the wind out. But anyway, for the electronic data, they are probably going to focus on providers and some advertisers, I suppose. If they get a warrant for an SP's e-mail, they would have access to everyone in her inbox. I don't know if they could do legally something with that. They might contact some clients and try to bully a few into a confession.

In Iceland, there is a vigilante group called ''Big Sisters'' who hacks into people's info to identify clients.
http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2011/11/13/big-sister/