It's Official Canada has adopted Nordic Model Prostitution Law
- Thread starter jons242
- Start date
It is now in committee for the summer and parliament should vote on it in september. Then it goes to the senate and back to parliament for a final approval. Then it will become effective 30 days after being passed. I guess it will be effective probably in December. It is too early to know how the police of Montreal will react to the new law. My guess is that it will be similar with the old laws.
The supreme court is not part of the process for making the law. Once the law is passed, people will challenge it in court. That can take many years to get to supreme court.
Massage parlors would still be legal. If Coderre wants to restrict MP, he will have to do it with municipal laws. He could tell police to investigate more MPs and do more stings, but he can't just close them without proof.
The supreme court is not part of the process for making the law. Once the law is passed, people will challenge it in court. That can take many years to get to supreme court.
Massage parlors would still be legal. If Coderre wants to restrict MP, he will have to do it with municipal laws. He could tell police to investigate more MPs and do more stings, but he can't just close them without proof.
Hi all
First year of law
The making and applications
The legislator!The executive branch of government!And senate
The interpreters ! The court system !
The law enforcement!The police!and crown prosecutor
3 distinctive branches
The city of Montreal does not have jurisdiction to create laws, municipal governments make bylaws and there is nothing criminal about it, since the Criminal Code in Canada is under Federal jurisdiction!
City bylaws can be prosecuted under the penal code and presumption of innocence does apply its like traffic tickets you may have heavy finds but no Criminal records so no restriction on Traveling !
Its a big joke finally!
Last night, on TV news (Le tTéléjournal), I saw and heard an interview with a young woman who stopped prositution after 15 years. The host asked her what she thinks and the law that criminalises costumers: she's against this law because it will be more dangerous for the women who continue to do this job. Her mother was there and thought the same thing. Two women who are againt prostitution but they are disagree with this law.
It's true and it's a good point. Many people who think prostitution is a bad thing are also against this kind of law. Anyone who knows about facts knows that this law his harmful. Those who support the law are either ignorant of reality or their moral is more important than truth. This is the same with pot. Many people support decriminalization because they know it will be easier to control and protect children if it is legal.
On a side note, MacKay is attracting a lot of anger after making some sexist comments on why we don't have more female judges.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/06/18/peter_mackay_tries_to_explain_lack_of_diversity_on_federal_courts.html
On a side note, MacKay is attracting a lot of anger after making some sexist comments on why we don't have more female judges.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/06/18/peter_mackay_tries_to_explain_lack_of_diversity_on_federal_courts.html
Very good critique of C-36:
http://ricochetmedia.ca/preview/listen-to-sex-workers-kill-bill-c-36
"One of the only things criminalization does is temporarily put at ease the minds of those who least understand sex work. For that panacea, the government is willing to sacrifice the safety and security of sex workers.
The tabled bill is a blatant attempt to bully sex workers out of their jobs, using criminalization and the dangers that follow as weapons of coercion. Built on a foundation of stigma, it can only create a staggeringly self-fulfilling prophecy: by framing sex workers as victims, we push them into increasingly shady situations and increase the likelihood that they become victimized."
Exactly.
http://ricochetmedia.ca/preview/listen-to-sex-workers-kill-bill-c-36
"One of the only things criminalization does is temporarily put at ease the minds of those who least understand sex work. For that panacea, the government is willing to sacrifice the safety and security of sex workers.
The tabled bill is a blatant attempt to bully sex workers out of their jobs, using criminalization and the dangers that follow as weapons of coercion. Built on a foundation of stigma, it can only create a staggeringly self-fulfilling prophecy: by framing sex workers as victims, we push them into increasingly shady situations and increase the likelihood that they become victimized."
Exactly.
In Canada, the governing party can pass any legislation they propose if they have a majority of MPs in the federal legislature. That is the situation now. The Conservatives have a majority of the seats in parliament and can pass any legislation they peopose. The opposition parties can vote againts it, but if the Conservative MPs do as they are told (and they will!) the bill will pass into law. Those who are hoping for modifications to the law are fooling themselves. The Cons are appealing to thier base - the religious right, morally repressed, and family values crowd! A couple of street protests by sex workers will have little effect.
Thanks, that's a very interesting document. I just wish they had discussed the legal definition of ''sexual service''. They say agencies will be criminalized, but this hinges on the fact that they are providing ''sexual services''. Bottom line, I think agencies can be charged if they gather enough proof after investigations, but the law cannot ban agencies outright.
Also, here's a letter from a client in TheStar:
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editors/2014/06/23/prostitution_john_states_his_case.html
They don't say what he said exactly during the interview. My guess is that if the agency owners does not say anything about sex they have nothing on him. Agencies will just have to be more discreet, especially when hiring new people. On the downside, it makes it more difficult for agencies to ensure that the escorts are following safe sex practices if they can't have honest discussions.
This is my replay to the lawmakers:
I am a single shy guy, 36, a genius in computers/software, have 3 successful companies. Widely respected and cherished by people in my peer group and my customers.
My mind gets stuck when I talk to girls, because I grew up in tech schools AKA "Male monasteries".
I don't get laid, if a woman says something harsh to me, my mind can freak out really bad and I could literally cry out of desperation and frustration.
What should I do? "Kill myself"? Watch porn? Seek sex in Venezuela? What? I want some lawmaker tell me that!
What should a man like that do? "Get a girlfriend" He can't, Ok, that's the reality, he can't. He is a human being too.
I am not a tool to this society to invent, innovate, work, pay horrendously high taxes and not even have a right to harmlessly get laid with a woman who obviously enjoys her profession!!! If these lawmakers so smart, let them write software and work like I do. "Bunch of knowitalls".
In ancient tribes, elders knew that if a guy is left without a woman, he will not contribute to society and after a while completely freak out. They even invented a marriage between 1 woman and several men just for that.
Why is it a crime for a mature adult to seek actual help from a professional escort who can help him unblock himself? Am I beating her up or something?
Why is it a crime?
If you are protecting "minors" set a minimum age for "sexual services" like 25. I can't believe a 33 year old woman needs protection from me.
If a person forces another person to perform any act, not just sexual, make that a crime!
I am not forcing anybody. I need compassion and emotionally-safe environment to develop myself. I don't want to hurt anybody.
Another example,
a guy goes through divorce, and he is about to completely freak out, take a gun and start shooting his ex family with his kids and everybody on the street. Don't tell me it "never happend in Canada", it happens way too often...
No, he is not a criminal. He is a man driven to a desparation because nobody cares about what is ESSENTIAL NEED FOR HIM and everybody Criminalizes everything he is doing.
FYI there are 100 billion neurons in each of our heads. Can somebody tell how will they react in a deeply frustrated state?
Isn't it better to let him hire escorts to prevent this, to change his outlook on life and see the life from a different angle and perspective?
Should I become a Prime Minister to shut these feminazis up?
The way this law is written is completely unreasonable, very vague and creates more harm than good. Other than human trafficking, advertising to minors, nothing makes sense in this law.
It's a typical feminazi law, and I hope that it will either not go through, get amended, or simply not get executed in reality.
Because I can't imagine a common-sense judge judging a guy like me in his situation to seek simple "training wheels" in a form of paying a much more experienced woman for her time to have sex with him.
If they prevent that, the number of rapes will go higher, is this what they want?
They should accept the reality of life that we are primarily animals and only thin layer of upper cortex makes us humans. And that Sex is not a luxury, it's a necessity. They should make procurement of sexual services SAFE for all parties involved and not criminalize it. Make escorts able to call police if they are beaten or abused!!! GEEZ!!! It's common sense!!! These are women, daughters just like everybody else. They deserve protection too!
If they are afraid to call police, for sure they will be abused. Make contractual obligation to perform sex "non-obligatory" in other words even if we sign a written contract, you can say "I am not doing that just because, here is X% of your money back good bye". And that's it, there is no more ground for abuse, force, etc.
Make agencies TALK OPENLY with recruits about what is expected of them and all the nuances of the profession and what to do in each case.
Criminalizing it will create a much more abusive situations where Drug lords will own brothels and do whatever they want with whomever they want and nobody will be able to do anything. It's the opposite of what this law wants to achieve.
I am a single shy guy, 36, a genius in computers/software, have 3 successful companies. Widely respected and cherished by people in my peer group and my customers.
My mind gets stuck when I talk to girls, because I grew up in tech schools AKA "Male monasteries".
I don't get laid, if a woman says something harsh to me, my mind can freak out really bad and I could literally cry out of desperation and frustration.
What should I do? "Kill myself"? Watch porn? Seek sex in Venezuela? What? I want some lawmaker tell me that!
What should a man like that do? "Get a girlfriend" He can't, Ok, that's the reality, he can't. He is a human being too.
I am not a tool to this society to invent, innovate, work, pay horrendously high taxes and not even have a right to harmlessly get laid with a woman who obviously enjoys her profession!!! If these lawmakers so smart, let them write software and work like I do. "Bunch of knowitalls".
In ancient tribes, elders knew that if a guy is left without a woman, he will not contribute to society and after a while completely freak out. They even invented a marriage between 1 woman and several men just for that.
Why is it a crime for a mature adult to seek actual help from a professional escort who can help him unblock himself? Am I beating her up or something?
Why is it a crime?
If you are protecting "minors" set a minimum age for "sexual services" like 25. I can't believe a 33 year old woman needs protection from me.
If a person forces another person to perform any act, not just sexual, make that a crime!
I am not forcing anybody. I need compassion and emotionally-safe environment to develop myself. I don't want to hurt anybody.
Another example,
a guy goes through divorce, and he is about to completely freak out, take a gun and start shooting his ex family with his kids and everybody on the street. Don't tell me it "never happend in Canada", it happens way too often...
No, he is not a criminal. He is a man driven to a desparation because nobody cares about what is ESSENTIAL NEED FOR HIM and everybody Criminalizes everything he is doing.
FYI there are 100 billion neurons in each of our heads. Can somebody tell how will they react in a deeply frustrated state?
Isn't it better to let him hire escorts to prevent this, to change his outlook on life and see the life from a different angle and perspective?
Should I become a Prime Minister to shut these feminazis up?
The way this law is written is completely unreasonable, very vague and creates more harm than good. Other than human trafficking, advertising to minors, nothing makes sense in this law.
It's a typical feminazi law, and I hope that it will either not go through, get amended, or simply not get executed in reality.
Because I can't imagine a common-sense judge judging a guy like me in his situation to seek simple "training wheels" in a form of paying a much more experienced woman for her time to have sex with him.
If they prevent that, the number of rapes will go higher, is this what they want?
They should accept the reality of life that we are primarily animals and only thin layer of upper cortex makes us humans. And that Sex is not a luxury, it's a necessity. They should make procurement of sexual services SAFE for all parties involved and not criminalize it. Make escorts able to call police if they are beaten or abused!!! GEEZ!!! It's common sense!!! These are women, daughters just like everybody else. They deserve protection too!
If they are afraid to call police, for sure they will be abused. Make contractual obligation to perform sex "non-obligatory" in other words even if we sign a written contract, you can say "I am not doing that just because, here is X% of your money back good bye". And that's it, there is no more ground for abuse, force, etc.
Make agencies TALK OPENLY with recruits about what is expected of them and all the nuances of the profession and what to do in each case.
Criminalizing it will create a much more abusive situations where Drug lords will own brothels and do whatever they want with whomever they want and nobody will be able to do anything. It's the opposite of what this law wants to achieve.
Last edited:
Another article which suggests that the law might be considered constitutional by the Supreme Court, because it now criminalizes prostitution - which fundamentally changes the context of the Bedford decision:
http://www.iconnectblog.com/2014/06/canadas-new-prostitution-bill-dont-assume-its-unconstitutional/
http://www.iconnectblog.com/2014/06/canadas-new-prostitution-bill-dont-assume-its-unconstitutional/
Here is a good rebuttal of that view
"But that's not what this new bill does. From the perspective of the sex worker, it is still a lawful activity upon which the government is imposing restrictions," he said. "If they want to 'criminalize prostitution,' then they should just criminalize prostitution."
Macfarlane believes MacKay's bill replicates a lot of the harms the top court was concerned with when it voided the original laws. The restrictions on advertising and the revived provisions on communicating in public have the exact same effect that the old provisions did in forcing sex workers underground, making it more difficult for them to vet clients and meet in a safe location of their choosing, he said. "This bill has the effect of increasing the risks that sex workers have in conducting their business."
"I cannot see a court concluding that this bill has the balance right," Macfarlane said. "The bill is far too draconian to meet the constitutional standards that the court outlined."
The preamble might shift the court's analysis a little bit and make it harder for justices to conclude that the laws are arbitrary, he said, but it won't affect considerations about whether the impact of the law is grossly disproportionate.
"On that, I don't see how a preamble or the government's intentions matter, to be frank. If the harm outweighs the benefit of the law, and if, in essence, the selling of sex is still a lawful activity but all these other aspects of the law just make it a more dangerous way to conduct that activity, then the government is going to lose again."
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/0...onservatives-government-mackay_n_5479045.html
University of Waterloo political scientist Emmett Macfarlane argued, however, that the bill does not impose a blanket ban on prostitution. Based on what the court said, the bill might be less problematic from a constitutional standpoint if the federal government had criminalized prostitution, he suggested.
"But that's not what this new bill does. From the perspective of the sex worker, it is still a lawful activity upon which the government is imposing restrictions," he said. "If they want to 'criminalize prostitution,' then they should just criminalize prostitution."
Macfarlane believes MacKay's bill replicates a lot of the harms the top court was concerned with when it voided the original laws. The restrictions on advertising and the revived provisions on communicating in public have the exact same effect that the old provisions did in forcing sex workers underground, making it more difficult for them to vet clients and meet in a safe location of their choosing, he said. "This bill has the effect of increasing the risks that sex workers have in conducting their business."
"I cannot see a court concluding that this bill has the balance right," Macfarlane said. "The bill is far too draconian to meet the constitutional standards that the court outlined."
The preamble might shift the court's analysis a little bit and make it harder for justices to conclude that the laws are arbitrary, he said, but it won't affect considerations about whether the impact of the law is grossly disproportionate.
"On that, I don't see how a preamble or the government's intentions matter, to be frank. If the harm outweighs the benefit of the law, and if, in essence, the selling of sex is still a lawful activity but all these other aspects of the law just make it a more dangerous way to conduct that activity, then the government is going to lose again."
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/0...onservatives-government-mackay_n_5479045.html
I wrote to my MP. His job is to represent my opinion in parliament.
I strongly encourage everybody to write to their member of parliament.
I believe sex work must be legal and not criminal, but it must be organized in a safe and respectful manner for everybody involved.
The actual sexual services part of a contract should be made "non-obligatory", that means from a legal perspective it's totally a sex worker choice (men or a woman) to perform that part of their contract. That means nobody can force through legal system to make somebody perform them, even if they prepaid. This covers the Moral part of this debate. As for "objectifying human body" argument, I don't objectify anybody. And I am sure a lot of people neither. We actually have our own lives. Law does not have a mandate to control our thoughts either! If you don't want to be objectified, don't walk half naked, don't star in porn films.
There should be clear guidance for agencies to perform their jobs in a socially acceptable manner and a strict requirement for practicing safe sex.
And they could impose a higher age for sex work, let's say 25.
But it should not be punishable by imprisonment! This part is completely insane.
Because that will push this entire industry into the hands of tough criminals like Drug lords. And they will terrorize young and naive girls with "legally putting them to prison since they performed sex acts" unless they continue performing them. So this law creates perfect flow of slaves into the hands of Drug lords and a monopoly to earn millions of dollars of cash.
This law will enrich drug lords and after ~10 years Canada will have to fight them with SWAT teams.
Also no country has every succeeded of stopping prostitution including Arab countries where by their law a sex worker must be stoned to death publicly.
It absolutely cannot criminalize so broadly everybody who out of a need, lonlyness purchased or sold those services.
This is what being a responsible adult is about.
There are a lot of difficult jobs on this planet, and sex work although not an easy one, is not the most dangerous nor the most difficult one either. But it is a necessary for the well being of our society and it's really not a joke for a single guy who can't get a date. We shouldn't close our eyes on the good that this profession provides and on how many lives are actually saved by letting people experience sex and not go insane and start shooting people and raping.
Write to your MP and let them know your voice. It's their job to represent your opinion in Parliament and not just sit and wait for their pension! The more we write the better. Don't worry, they will be heard because most people are passive, and MPs want to be reelected also, so they are afraid of you in a way.
You live in a democracy, USE IT! Don't be passive! Don't let stupid laws like that go through unchallenged. You live here too, it's your country too!
I strongly encourage everybody to write to their member of parliament.
I believe sex work must be legal and not criminal, but it must be organized in a safe and respectful manner for everybody involved.
The actual sexual services part of a contract should be made "non-obligatory", that means from a legal perspective it's totally a sex worker choice (men or a woman) to perform that part of their contract. That means nobody can force through legal system to make somebody perform them, even if they prepaid. This covers the Moral part of this debate. As for "objectifying human body" argument, I don't objectify anybody. And I am sure a lot of people neither. We actually have our own lives. Law does not have a mandate to control our thoughts either! If you don't want to be objectified, don't walk half naked, don't star in porn films.
There should be clear guidance for agencies to perform their jobs in a socially acceptable manner and a strict requirement for practicing safe sex.
And they could impose a higher age for sex work, let's say 25.
But it should not be punishable by imprisonment! This part is completely insane.
Because that will push this entire industry into the hands of tough criminals like Drug lords. And they will terrorize young and naive girls with "legally putting them to prison since they performed sex acts" unless they continue performing them. So this law creates perfect flow of slaves into the hands of Drug lords and a monopoly to earn millions of dollars of cash.
This law will enrich drug lords and after ~10 years Canada will have to fight them with SWAT teams.
Also no country has every succeeded of stopping prostitution including Arab countries where by their law a sex worker must be stoned to death publicly.
It absolutely cannot criminalize so broadly everybody who out of a need, lonlyness purchased or sold those services.
This is what being a responsible adult is about.
There are a lot of difficult jobs on this planet, and sex work although not an easy one, is not the most dangerous nor the most difficult one either. But it is a necessary for the well being of our society and it's really not a joke for a single guy who can't get a date. We shouldn't close our eyes on the good that this profession provides and on how many lives are actually saved by letting people experience sex and not go insane and start shooting people and raping.
Write to your MP and let them know your voice. It's their job to represent your opinion in Parliament and not just sit and wait for their pension! The more we write the better. Don't worry, they will be heard because most people are passive, and MPs want to be reelected also, so they are afraid of you in a way.
You live in a democracy, USE IT! Don't be passive! Don't let stupid laws like that go through unchallenged. You live here too, it's your country too!
Sometimes it better to keep ones opinions to themselves. Your worse than that Peter Macgay guy.
So basically, in your opinion, Young women between the ages of 18-24 can't think for themselves ? They are immature , they are irresponsible..? You should tell your MP that the Feds needs to clarify the laws, either prostitution is legal or its illegal and stop treating Canadians like fools.
We really need to get these Fuckers out of government ASAP.
I agree. I will acknowledge that we have all sorts of minimum age requirements for certain jobs. However, I am just sick and tired of labeling someone as an adult and then having their adulthood stipulated by all these restrictions. For example, at 18 you are old enough to join the military and go to Iraq or Afghanistan and be blown to smithereens by an IED. But the same people that put these kids in harms way say you can't drink until you are 21? If you commit a capital offense an 18 year old can be given lethal injection (which I am all for) but you cannot buy a beer? This is a crock of shit.
The same applies to SPs. If they are adults then let them earn a living by whatever means legal. And prostitution should be legal.
The same applies to SPs. If they are adults then let them earn a living by whatever means legal. And prostitution should be legal.
Write to your MP what you believe in. Don't tell me what I should do. I think that 18 is fine, but you need to throw opposition a bone, because as it stands now, if you buy sex, you go to prison. So it's better to hike min age to 25 but make it legal, than keep it illegal. THINK FOR CHRIST SAKE! With your big head for a change... Argument that "Prostitution should be legal just because" has failed already. It's illegal already. We have lost, man. We have to give something up. We can't win all arguments, my goal is to make it legal even with limitations. Anyway, if you don't understand it, no reason for me to argue with you...
WRITE to your MP what YOU believe in. At least I wrote and you did nothing so far. Don't just quarrel here with me, let MPs do their jobs in representing our opinions! But they need to receive that opinion and if you don't write to them how will they know? "Silence means you agree to the law".
You have to speak up! And you have to give something up. Later they can correct the min age. WRITE, don't worry.
WRITE to your MP what YOU believe in. At least I wrote and you did nothing so far. Don't just quarrel here with me, let MPs do their jobs in representing our opinions! But they need to receive that opinion and if you don't write to them how will they know? "Silence means you agree to the law".
You have to speak up! And you have to give something up. Later they can correct the min age. WRITE, don't worry.
First, I also wrote to my MP and I also encourage people to do it. If you can manage to write a review, you can manage to write a short letter.
You are making a grave mistake aertonda, because strict legalization is just as bad as criminalization. If you impose arbitrary rules about how it can be done, then people are just going to work in the black market and you will get same problems as with criminalization. Most people either can't comply to these rules or will choose not to. A 19yo woman is not going to wait 6 years to do this job and earn some money.
More to the point, what two adults decide to do privately is none of the government's business. Plain and simple! Whether money is involved is irrelevant. Of course, people should declare their income, but that's all that the government should worry about. A sex worker is an independent worker and there is no reason to regulate her activity if we don't regulate people who do it for free.
If somebody wants to open a commercial brothel, that's a different thing and this needs to be regulated like any other public venue. The government could decide if these are acceptable or not. This has nothing to do with the agreement between two people to have to have sex together or not; for money or not. Sex is something that you can legally have with 5000 complete strangers for FREE. If you let the government decide how you can have sex for money, next they will decide how you can have sex for free.
You are making a grave mistake aertonda, because strict legalization is just as bad as criminalization. If you impose arbitrary rules about how it can be done, then people are just going to work in the black market and you will get same problems as with criminalization. Most people either can't comply to these rules or will choose not to. A 19yo woman is not going to wait 6 years to do this job and earn some money.
More to the point, what two adults decide to do privately is none of the government's business. Plain and simple! Whether money is involved is irrelevant. Of course, people should declare their income, but that's all that the government should worry about. A sex worker is an independent worker and there is no reason to regulate her activity if we don't regulate people who do it for free.
If somebody wants to open a commercial brothel, that's a different thing and this needs to be regulated like any other public venue. The government could decide if these are acceptable or not. This has nothing to do with the agreement between two people to have to have sex together or not; for money or not. Sex is something that you can legally have with 5000 complete strangers for FREE. If you let the government decide how you can have sex for money, next they will decide how you can have sex for free.
High Five! for writing to your MP!
We have to write to them, guys. We can't let them treat us as criminals just because we want to add some sexual fun into our lives. It's absolutely unfair!
MPs are very connected people, they talk to supreme court judges, to the whole legal community. They know each other, they listen to what population says because they need to get reelected.
If nobody writes to them they will assume that nobody cares and not dedicate their time to this issue at all.
That's why it's important for everybody to write their view, even if it's a simple sentence like "Prostitution should be legal", "We are not criminals! We are human beings! We harm nobody!"
Anything in that direction will make an impact later on. They will discuss informally between each other, weight arguments and sooner or later push it while feeling our real concerns and real support.
And if we don't do it, they'll say "Nobody complained to me, so I guess people are Ok with this". Does it make sense?
We have to write to them, guys. We can't let them treat us as criminals just because we want to add some sexual fun into our lives. It's absolutely unfair!
MPs are very connected people, they talk to supreme court judges, to the whole legal community. They know each other, they listen to what population says because they need to get reelected.
If nobody writes to them they will assume that nobody cares and not dedicate their time to this issue at all.
That's why it's important for everybody to write their view, even if it's a simple sentence like "Prostitution should be legal", "We are not criminals! We are human beings! We harm nobody!"
Anything in that direction will make an impact later on. They will discuss informally between each other, weight arguments and sooner or later push it while feeling our real concerns and real support.
And if we don't do it, they'll say "Nobody complained to me, so I guess people are Ok with this". Does it make sense?
Can't imagine this passing.
Our tolerant and compassionate stand on issues of human rights makes us a distinct unique nation. That's where we differ from our friends south of the border. Healthcare, death penalty, prostitution - We have showed the world our humanist stand on these issues. It'll be a sad day for Canada if this ridiculous model gets accepted.
Our tolerant and compassionate stand on issues of human rights makes us a distinct unique nation. That's where we differ from our friends south of the border. Healthcare, death penalty, prostitution - We have showed the world our humanist stand on these issues. It'll be a sad day for Canada if this ridiculous model gets accepted.
Similar threads
