Ontario Court of Appeal greenlights brothels, sweeps aside many of Canada’s anti-pros

[centaur]

Ontario Court of Appeals judgment coming out monday

Remember that Ontario lady judge that declare the canadian law on prostitution invalid?Well the Ontario government called on the Appeal Court to overturn her decision,and they will render a judgment on monday.I suppose it will be going to the Supreme Court after that but ....interesting and important for all of us nevertheless.


Notice of Release of Judgment - Reserved
To be posted on Monday, March 26, 2012 at 11:00 a.m.

On Monday, March 26, 2012, the Court of Appeal for Ontario will release its decision in Bedford v. Canada (Attorney General) (C52799 and C52814). This is an appeal from the decision of Justice Susan G. Himel of the Superior Court of Justice declaring that three provisions of the Criminal Code are unconstitutional:

Section 210, which prohibits the operation of common bawdy-houses for the purpose of prostitution;
Section 212(1)(j), which prohibits living on the avails of prostitution; and
Section 213(1)(c), which prohibits communicating for the purpose of prostitution in public.
Justices Doherty, Rosenberg, Feldman, MacPherson and Cronk heard the appeal from June 11-17, 2011.

 

[gugu]

Yep. Tomorrow is a big day and a lot of people all over the world will be watching. I am pessimistic. However, whatever the result, this will go to the Supreme Court.

 

[pinkworm]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/26/ontario-court-of-appeal-greenlights-brothels-sweeps-aside-many-of-canadas-anti-prostitution-laws/

The Court of Appeal for Ontario has swept aside some of the country’s anti-prostitution laws saying they place unconstitutional restrictions on prostitutes’ ability to protect themselves.

The landmark decision means sex workers will be able to hire drivers, bodyguards and support staff and work indoors in organized brothels or “bawdy houses,” while “exploitation” by pimps remains illegal.

However, openly soliciting customers on the street remains prohibited with the judges deeming that “a reasonable limit on the right to freedom of expression.”

 

[Doc Holliday]

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/26/w...tario-legalizes-brothels/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

 

[evillethings]

wow, that's big news for sure. about time.

 

[CWipes]

Rock on! But now I worry about the taxes...

- CWipes

 

[Lily from Montreal]

If the ruling is in Ontario is it going to be the same here? I see very well myself as a madam loll...Cwipes :if there is taxes maybe it will be possible to get a receipt and deduct it as entertainment expense? loll

 

[gugu]

Victoire historique pour les tds

Les travailleuses du sexe viennent de remporter une seconde victoire en Cour d'appel de l'Ontario. Cette victoire est partielle mais très significative.

L'article 210 du code criminel interdit le in-call au Canada. La juge Himel de la Cour supérieure de l'Ontario avait jugé cet article contraire à l'article 7 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés du Canada qui donne entre autres le droit à la sécurité de sa personne. La Cour d'appel de l'Ontario maintient cette décision et donne un an au gouvernement fédéral pour rendre la loi conforme à la Charte. L'appel est donc rejeté.

L'article 212(1)(j) du code criminel interdit à quiconque de vivre des fruits de la prostitution, y-compris les personnes n'ayant pas de relation d'exploitation avec les tds. La juge Himel de la Cour supérieure de l'Ontario avait jugé cet article contraire à l'article 7 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés du Canada qui donne entres le droit à la sécurité de sa personne. La Cour d'appel de l'Ontario maintient cette décision, mais elle n'ordonne pas l'abrogation de l'article. Elle choisit de plutôt préciser la définition du terme. Dorénavant, pour être passible d'accusation en vertu de cet article, il devra être démontré que la personne qui vit des fruits de la prostitution le font dans un contexte d'exploitation. Cette nouvelle définition sera en vigueur dans 30 jours en Ontario. L'appel est donc rejeté pour l'essentiel.

L'article 213(1)(c) du code criminel empêche les tds de communiquer avec des clients potentiels pour offrir leurs services dans l'espace public. La juge Himel de la Cour supérieure de l'Ontario avait jugé cet article contraire à l'article 2b) de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés du Canada qui garantit la liberté d'expression. La Cour d'appel de l'Ontario rejette ce jugement et maintient en force l'interdiction de communiquer en public à des fins de prostitution. Selon elle, la juge Himel était liée par un jugement précédent de la Cour suprême du Canada en 1990 qu'on appelle le Prostitution Reference qui avait établit que l'aticle 213(1)(c) était une limite raisonnable. L'appel est accepté.

Il y a fort à parier que le jugements sera porté en appel devant la Cour suprême du Canada par le gouvernement de l'Ontario, le gouvernement du Canada et les plaignantes.

La copie du jugement est disponible en anglais seulement à l'adresse suivante:

http://www.ontariocourts.ca/decision...12ONCA0186.pdf

 

[Tomato Soup]

What changes will happen when we are already turning a blind eye. Ontario and the rest of Canada will become like Quebec.

 

[gugu]

If the ruling is in Ontario is it going to be the same here? I see very well myself as a madam loll...Cwipes :if there is taxes maybe it will be possible to get a receipt and deduct it as entertainment expense? loll

You'll have to wait at least one year to become a Madam. It is the time the Appeal Court has given the federal government to change the law. But the canadian government will appeal the decision before the Supreme Court. That means at least an other two years.

 

[gugu]

Rock on! But now I worry about the taxes...

If in-call became legal I would be more worried about price increase than taxes. My feeling is that it would increase the external demand, especially from american tourists, and thus the prices.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

If in-call became legal I would be more worried about price increase than taxes. My feeling is that it would increase the external demand, especially from american tourists, and thus the prices.

True, but wouldn't it also increase the supply at the same time?

 

[joedoe88]

price would definitely go up if it was legalized just look at amsterdam

 

[gugu]

Yes indeed, rumple. And IMHO, this is the main issue in the hole thing. I support decriminalization and I think Alan Young has made a tremendous job in the court challenge. But I must admit I do not agree with him when he says decriminalization would be no big deal and would not change much. True it did not in New Zealand except on the positive side: enhanced security for sex workers because of a much better collaboration with the police.

However, New Zealand is an island pretty far away from the European and american markets where the big money is. Decriminalization did not increase much the demand. Demand side will obviously increase in Canada contrary to NZ. How will the supply side adjust? I see no other venue then migrant workers. And that will raise a lot of concerns, both from the abolitionists in Canada and in the rest of the world, especially in the USA. And that will bring back the whole trafficking issue, a much more complex one. Of course, the world trafficking data we have are gross exaggerations, beefed up by the the the TIP reports of the US State Department (unfortunately, only a few critical works done by Peter Andreas and David A Feingold are available on Internet). But still, I have a moral problem with migrant sex workers as you have seen quite a few, I believe, in the FKK.

How will the Canadian government react? I guess they may try to tighten the immigration policies. If they succeed, it may affect the supply side and the prices.

 

[Siocnarf]

I see very well myself as a madam loll...

Oh! Can I be your Support Staff? I have many useful skills.

I don't know if it would really increase demand from US that much? Tourists already come here and usually use outcalls, no?

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

But still, I have a moral problem with migrant sex workers as you have seen quite a few, I believe, in the FKK.

There are two sides to this, gugu. Yes, there certainly is trafficking going on in Germany, but, from what I understand, much less than before legalization. My sense is, however, that slavery has been contained to some degree as the FKKs and other clubs operate under the license and supervision of the government. What this oversight doesn't contain is girls under the control of pimps.

On the other hand, I've known quite a few girls who come to Germany for a few weeks or months at a time, make a pile of money, and head back to Romania, Bulgaria, or Hungary. Many are supporting their families and paying their way through school. I know one who has bought a home for her family.

While I like the idea of FKKs in the Montreal area, I'm not so sure about the rate of $180 per hour plus GST and QST.

 

[duetoday]

http://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2012/2012ONCA0186.htm

Not valid for a year....But "living off" modification valid in 30 days

No time to study today,but will do it tomorrow

 

[valarie_curves]

Here is an extentive interview on CTV.CA...

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120326/appeal-court-decision-canada-sex-trade-laws-120326/

 

[Mod 8]

Threads merged.

 

[gugu]

Thanks Valerie, that's the most comprehensive coverage I have seen today. In the third (or 4th) part of the coverage Young displays a show that is well worth looking at.