Sex workers win scc decision

[jellydo]

We are far from out of the woods. The old legislation is in force for one year and then will be removed unless replaced with new legislation by parliament. This is a good ruling for sex workers but new legislation could be worse - definitely for men and possibly for workers. One of the first stories that cbc ran (a biased piece by Lynn Lynch) was on the various European models of legislation http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/prosti...zation-or-legalization-works-better-1.2470190. I call the piece biased because she basically painted the direction she feels Canada will follow (based on her preference she is basically selling the Swede model and criticising the German model).
Anyway it appears Sweden and France either have or will be criminalizing the buying of sex. Good for women as they are viewed to be the victims and the men are penalized with fines and criminal records. Ultimately the direction we go is a function of parliament - not rational objective minds like the SCC. Currently it is LEGAL to buy/sell sex if done in the correct environment. We could move toward the Sweden/French model where it is ILLEGAL to buy sex.

I don`t know where the harper government will come out on this but there are already elements of the public and media pushing the Swedish model which would be backwards for men and ultimately for women as well. Women would be free from risk of criminal prosecution but ALL their clients would be people that are willing to commit a crime. The bottom end seedy side of the profession would grow and the higher end companion end of the business would shrink.
The New Zealand experience (legalized prostitution) could provide an example of what Canada may be in for. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_New_Zealand.

 

[jons242]

We are far from out of the woods. ....

Knowing Harper for the puritan that he is I would not be surprised if they adopted the Nordic model.

 

[Mod 8]

The next person to quote an entire post directly above his own only to make a one line reply will find themselves on a 2 week holiday.

Quotes edited in three posts.

M8

 

[nounours_]

Un bon éditorial ce matin, avec une interprétaion précise du jugement je trouve :
http://www.lapresse.ca/le-soleil/op...presse_B22_editorialistes_255150_section_POS1

 

[2fast2slow]

this sex worker gave a good interview on the french radio, her name is "maya'', she is still active as an escort in montreal. She is smart. Intelligence is sexy I wonder who she is

http://www.985fm.ca/audioplayer.php?mp3=204558

 

[hungry101]

This means that new laws can be passed to allow the LE to trap John's ( Hobbyist's ) its a win at the moment but wait for the Pendulum to swing back there will be some repercussions for sure. Hopefully SP's will have safer environment's to work under. Any thing that makes life safer for SP's is welcome.

This is what has happened in several of the socialist Nordic countries in Europe. The same for Italy. They only bust the Johns and they will take your car. I hope it doesn't come to this but at least the sex workers have won round 1.

Looks like they have put things off for a year.

 

[nounours_]

Les intervenantes du milieu de la prostitution à Québec saluent la décision de la Cour suprême du Canada ...
http://ici.radio-canada.ca/regions/quebec/2013/12/20/011-jugement-prostitution-reactions.shtml

 

[daydreamer41]

Regarding the Fin model where they only prosecute if it the SP has been human trafficked, how in the world would you as a consumer know that?

It gets so ridiculous. The book should be thrown at the human traffickers and that's it.

As far as Sweden law goes, I don't think the Supreme Court will permit a law like the Swedish law only because it will drive prostitution under the radar and the plaintiffs in this case will vehemently argue that. Yes, the sex worker will not be subject to prosecution, but it would be riskier safety-wise because to protect their customers, they would have to arrange everything in secret. That was the purpose of their suit. They were subject to risk of arrest and safety concerns.

 

[freedom3]

As far as Sweden law goes, I don't think the Supreme Court will permit a law like the Swedish law only because it will drive prostitution under the radar and the plaintiffs in this case will vehemently argue that.

First, a john would need to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court. Second, a Supreme court challenge takes 5 years to process. I will be too old for sex by then.

 

[simonpaul]

5 years is a minimum sometime that will take much more, may be ten years.

 

[nounours_]

According to Joy Smith, M.P.: Canada Must Target Buyers of Sex
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/joy-smith-mp/canada-legal-prostitution_b_4481732.html
:help:

 

[jellydo]

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/joy-smith-mp/canada-legal-prostitution_b_4481732.html
:help:

the Joy Smith article references research on the "sexual exploitation industry" by Susan McIntyre.....

"Even the buyers of sex recognize the harm caused by prostitution to women. A 2012 Canadian study on the buyers of sex called Buyer Beware, found that of the 20 men interviewed, 8 of the men indicated that they acknowledged that women were most harmed by their act of buying sex and another 10 of the men felt both the woman and the buyer were harmed. Result -- 90 per cent of the men who bought sex recognized the women involved in prostitution were harmed by act of prostitution. The same study revealed that all 20 sex buyers would warn a first time sex buyer against engaging in prostitution due to the harm caused."

Reading that, I wondered what 18 guys would think that way? From the study, the sample is revealed....

"A total of 20 sex consumers were interviewed for this study between February 2010 and December 2011. Interview subjects were sourced from the Prostitution Offender Program in Winnipeg and Edmonton. Other interviewees were found through Sexual Addiction groups and word-of-mouth in Alberta. All interviews were conducted in confidential, safe locations."

A bunch of guys in John School would have no vested interest in saying prostitution was harmful would they? I'm sure sampling bias wasn't a factor in those results.

 

[hungry101]

Good catch Jellydo. This is a bunch of propaganda put forth by Johns who were coerced on some rehabilitation program. What a complete crock of shit this data is. The only problem is that there are very few of us that could come forward to publicly dispute this nonsense. I tried to do it on another non-sexually related board that I participate in (a shooting forum) and the cops on the board smelled me right out. "Sounds like a perp," they said. I was able to tell them that this is none of their God damn business but outside of this, who can come forward to dispute this crapola?

I sure wish the shoe were on the other foot and that woman would give me 200-400$/hour for sex. I don't care if they were ugly and fat. I would take that money and probably go on hobby trips to Montreal, Rio, Germany, and Thailand.

 

[jellydo]

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. People (feminists mostly) are lined up 10 deep to promote and push for the Nordic model. If the Nordic model is working its only because many are travelling to Germany. There is no one to champion the legalization case even if there are working models out there other than Germany. The problem of human trafficking and underage girls (which is horrible) has been intertwined and embedded in the whole debate. In reality they are two separate issues. Its like saying we must make alcohol illegal because there are too many impaired drivers.

The idea of the challenge was to get girls off the street and give them a safe place to work. I don't see legalizing selling and criminalizing buying as affecting that situation, actually it will probably make it worse. The idea that you are going to curb the oldest profession in the world is very naïve. You just push it further into the corners and make it more dangerous.

 

[Dorftrottel]

Regarding the Fin model where they only prosecute if it the SP has been human trafficked, how in the world would you as a consumer know that?

The U.K. has a similar law and there it's "strict liability"--you don't have to know the SP has been human-trafficked in order to be found guilty.

 

[prophetofdoom]

So this could well be the last year of having a bit of fun safely both for the guys and the gals. It feels like being on the Titanic after being stricken.

If it is any consolation, hobbying continues in Sweden without too many issues. One needs to know how to play the game. Escorts are usually fine. There is even a street scene but much more subdued. Massage places continue to double up as more than massage in many instances. LE is focussed on trafficking. As it happens with these things in all parts of the world, it has lapsed into toleration mode.

However the sword of Democles does hang over the head of buyers - and one is always aware of it - but life goes on.

 

[gugu]

We're not there yet. Client's criminalization has the same effect as the provisions that were judged contrary to the Charter. Of course they would be contested the same way the other provisions were. Mckay is playing politics for the moment. Canada has a path more realistic if it want to go that way: Finland. They criminalize the clients of trafficking victims, whether or not they knew they were victims. I'd be OK with that by the way. Trafficking is largely a myth and the proof is that very few cases make it though the tribunals.

 

[daydreamer41]

Well, looks like the SC decision might cause even more harm than good: http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/p...yberpresse_BO2_quebec_canada_178_accueil_POS3. Peter Mackay, minister of Justice, now seems intent on criminalizing clients.

That certainly won't help us operate more freely...

My question: could this outcome - under a Conservative government - not have been predicted?

The article has a comment by a criminologist on the Swedish model. It says that the law criminalizing only buyers and pimps has changed the way prostitution is practiced and seems to say that it is more underground.

5 years is a minimum sometime that will take much more, may be ten years.

Well, from what I have read any new law would have to be reviewed by the Canadian Supreme Court to confirm the new law complies with their decision. I would think if a law is passed criminalizing buyers of sex, any sex provider or group would file a complaint saying that such a law would put them at risk because they would be driven underground to protect their customers.

 

[jellydo]

excellent links reverdy - thanks for those.
Daydreamer - actually, I don't know if the supreme court has to review a new law to see if it is in compliance with their original decision but I would think they would also look at the consistency of the law. Point being the government could pass a law that would simply make all prostitution illegal and then the new law would not have the inconsistencies of it being legal but not allowing the workers to take adequate measures to protect themselves. Likewise a new law that made it illegal to purchase would not get criticized by the SC simply because it is more dangerous because the more dangerous activities would be illegal activities conducted by buyers.
I do take comfort that if the Justice minister it tipping his hat in a particular direction he is doing it way too early which lends credence to gugu's assertions that MacKay is playing politics. By revealing their position early they are allowing counter positions to form and present arguments against the indicated position. On the other hand if there is no public objection to the Nordic model.....it will be a slam dunk.

 

[daydreamer41]

jellydo, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a lower court decision that basically said that because prostitution was illegal in some instances (but not all) as incall or in public, it drove the sex providers underground and made their trade risky. So let's say that the legislature does pass a Sweden like law that makes it illegal for buyers of sex, but not sellers. It's not illegal for the sex providers, but the buyers will be reluctant to buy their services because of the law. So the sellers will find other means than openly advertising on Announce123, Backpage, (even merb?) and they will operate in secret again, maybe by word of mouth, or agencies which require verification of employment, etc., like in the US.

The sex workers will not be safe in such an environment, because they will be protecting their clientele. Legally, they will be immune from prosecution, but if they become informants, they won't be making money as sex providers. I don't think such a law would be compliant with the Supreme Court's decision or the lower court's either. I think the decision was hinting at regulating the trade at the most. If the legislature passes a Swedish type law, I bet you the original group will challenge that law vigorously, because they represent sex providers and such a law would hurt the women they represent at least financially, and possibly putting them in precarious situations that could result in physical harm, as they alleged in initially challenging the current law.