Live from the supremem court

[susi]

http://scc-csc.insinc.com/web/scc_live_stream.php?lan=EN&resolution=LO

our bc constitutional challenge standing is being heard right now!! cross your fingers!!:clap2:

love susieXXXO

 

[myselftheother]

http://scc-csc.insinc.com/web/scc_live_stream.php?lan=EN&resolution=LO

our bc constitutional challenge standing is being heard right now!! cross your fingers!!:clap2:

love susieXXXO

Here we go....good luck.

 

[susi]

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/01/19/pol-sex-workers-scoc.html
Sex-trade workers make their case in top court
By Meagan Fitzpatrick, CBC News
Posted: Jan 19, 2012 9:57 AM ET
Last Updated: Jan 19, 2012 12:04 PM ET
Lawyers for the federal government and a group of Vancouver sex-trade workers are in Canada's top court on Thursday to argue the validity of an attempted constitutional challenge to prostitution laws.

Members of the sex trade and their supporters will rally outside the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa around noon after the morning hearing gets underway.

The Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society has been arguing since 2007 that prostitution-related laws violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The federal government challenged the case before it could get to court, and attempted to have it thrown out. The government argued sex-trade workers don't have grounds to launch a claim because it doesn't qualify for public interest standing.

Court to decide if case can proceed
The legal test for granting public interest standing before the court involves demonstrating that:

The issue is a serious one.
There is no other reasonable or effective way for the issue to come before the court.
Those behind the case are directly affected by it.
The British Columbia Supreme Court agreed with Ottawa, and denied public interest standing to the sex-trade workers group in 2008. But that decision was overturned when the group appealed it in 2010.

P.O.V.
Should the prostitution laws change? Take our survey.

The federal government, in turn, launched an appeal, and now it will be up to the Supreme Court to decide whether the case can proceed and the sex-trade workers can continue with their challenge.

The court is hearing arguments Thursday and will issue its decision in the coming months.

Workers argue laws are discriminatory
Former sex-trade worker Sheryl Kiselbach is also part of the case. The group is trying to challenge most of the Criminal Code provisions pertaining to adult prostitution, including those related to bawdy houses, living off the avails of prostitution, and communicating in a public place for the purpose of prostitution.

Prostitution itself is legal in Canada; most of the activities related to prostitution, however, are prohibited by the Criminal Code.

The sex-trade workers argue the laws prevent them from improving the health and safety of their work, they discriminate against them because of their line of work and they restrict their freedom of expression.

The workers also claim the prostitution laws prevent them from obtaining the protections and benefits that other workers get under labour and employment laws.

 

[susi]

go to the cbc site an vote for decriminalization!!!!
love susie

 

[leoghaire]

if the poll is a refelction of opinion the gov't would pretty much have to change the rules and legalize this industry.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2012/01/should-canadas-prostitution-laws-be-amended.html

 

[HankQuinlan]

if the poll is a refelction of opinion the gov't would pretty much have to change the rules and legalize this industry.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2012/01/should-canadas-prostitution-laws-be-amended.html

Sorry, but this government doesn't have to do anything based on public opinion (or research, or....), unless it also matches their ideology.

 

[DavidMR]

I think it's very unfortunate that there's an active feminist lobby asking for the Swedish system of making prostitution illegal by targetting clients with fines and possible jail time as well. Their arguments are rooted in theory, and take no account of practical reality.

And that lobby is well represented in Vancouver, especially among the Rape Relief leadership.

 

[susi]

yes, the rape reliefers are extreme zealots. they attack me when i speak publically, which i am use to but if other workers who may want to speak out witness it, it doesn't exactly make they feel safe to speak up...

at least inside the city here, city staff and the police seem to be more and more on side with an open, stabilized sex industry here. we are always there countering them and pointing out the flaws and outright lies they promote as "truth" about the sex industry.

one of them always reads a thread she copied from perb about a forced roman shower- where the guy made a woman puke without her consent- its graphic and always sets the stage for labeling all clients as deviants. she states how 31 perb members answered the thread but neglets to mention that the guy who posted the review was the subject of an internet pile on and was immediately banned. no mention of the ethics shown by this board or its members....

anyway, i am warming up to do a communications campaign in partneship with "patrick- gentleman caller" a disabled client- to try to change the way clients are seen and represented...i am hoping the john's voice researcher will join us as well...

well, here's hoping for a positive outcome and improved access to justice for marginalized groups in canada!!

love susieXXXO

 

[HankQuinlan]

The Supreme Court of Canada is independent of the Government of Canada and most certainly is independent of Polls. The argument in front of them on both the BC and the Ontario cases is "Equal protection" I'm pretty confident that I know where a Beverly McLaughlin led SCOC is going to find the law. People really should look at her rulings as a BC Superior Court Judge. She's been consistent on "Equal Protection" throughout almost 40 years on Superior and Supreme Court benches.

Governments are not required to spend taxpayers' money to battle court judgements all the way to the Supreme court. They can simply make legislative changes based on good policy, especially when urged to by lower courts.

 

[HankQuinlan]

What if "simply make legislative changes based on good policy" results in abortion being made illegal, a return to the death penalty or the right to carry weapons? Still a good idea?

Our system makes the final arbitration of Law the responsibility of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Arbitration, yes. But introduction of law is the responsibility of Parliament. They introduce new laws all the time without being forced to by court decisions. No court decisions brought forth Bill C-10; ideology and pandering to their core did. They do, of course, know that bringing forth certain laws will likely bring court challenges; bringing forth other laws will get them dumped from office. I would love to see them set out an anti-abortion law -- it would be challenged before it ever went into effect, and they would be out of office in the next election, and they know it. And nothing forces them to challenge lower court decisions; they can simply change laws based on those. In the case of prostitution laws, they simply don't want to. It is a political decision, not a legal one.

 

[DavidMR]

yes, the rape reliefers are extreme zealots.

Thanks, Susi, for confirming my observations! My only quibble is that perhaps "zealots" is a polite understatement. And I believe they have a fair degree of loyal following in feminist political circles around the Lower Mainland.

One good sign is that East Vancouver MP Libby Davies will have none of their bull and is promoting full legalization by way of a private members bill. Chances of passage with a Conservative majority are slim, but at least she's one more voice for realism.

 

[Tugela]

Since we have a system that is finely tuned and results in binding law, it would be idiotic to write and have the Senate or the Governor General reject a series of laws. The SCOC will rule and they will tell us exactly what must be changed - in fact - that portion of their judgement may be the bill submitted to Parliament.

The SCOC is governed by the constitution, and that can be amended by parliament. So, if there is enough political will to make a change, ultimately parliament will decide, as it should. The role of the SCOC is to ensure that legislation is consistent with the constitution, making new law is NOT their mandate, that is the responsibility of parliament. If they attempt to try to do so often enough, things will be changed. Most cases that you percieve as new law is actually the interpretation of existing law that is being made, and that is easily amended by changing that existing law.

In the case of prostitution the obvious solution for government if they want to keep it illegal is to do away with the peripheral laws and outlaw the act itself. That would place it in the same realm as other outlawed acts, such as things related to various ages of majority, polygamy, the sale/possession of drugs and a whole host of other things that involve consentual activity that society has deemed undesirable. The problem with the current law is that prostitution itself is a legal activity, while things related to it are not. And it the avoidance of those related activities which creates an unsafe environment for the people who are engaged in an otherwise legal activity, that is what the courts have ruled on. It is a catch 22 situation. The solution for government is either (a) remove the laws surrounding the legal act of prostitution; or (b) Prohibit prostitution completely. At the moment government apparently wants to do neither and maintain the status quo, and that is what the fight is about. If they fail in their challenge (and they allmost certainly will) the next step will be to do either of those two things. With the current government there is no mystery about which course they will take if forced to do so.

 

[susi]

why do you think the challenge will loose...? it was won once already in ontario....facts are the facts...no?

susie

 

[HankQuinlan]

About the politics of Social Issues or "Why is the Harper Government litigating this?"

The Harper Conservative Government is made up of at least 3 strong factions. There are the "Old Line Progressive Conservatives" that I'm part of, the Western Reform Party that Harper is part of and the "Social Issues Conservatives" that people like Sue Gallant are part of.

Harper is demonstrating to the "Social Issues Conservatives" that he can't do what they want. That is accomplished by having the Supreme Court of Canada rule on their issues. Not only does that "prove" that he "did everything he could", it sets the law. Once the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on an issue, it can't be revisited.

This is a proper use of the Supreme Court of Canada and the Harper Government isn't the first and won't be the last government to settle issues in this manner.

Legal Abortion was won in 1988 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Morgentaler

Same Sex Marriage was won in 2004 http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/news-nouv/fs-fi/2004/doc_31342.html

Thank you. That is an explanation that makes sense to me.