PERB In Need of Banner
E.D. Meds

Prostitution Laws

mbhkey

Banned
Feb 17, 2004
32
0
0
30
Penhold
This is another example of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms failing. The prostitution laws also violate my right to pay for sex if I feel like it.
 

mbhkey

Banned
Feb 17, 2004
32
0
0
30
Penhold
Legalizing drugs will increase usage. This will drive up health care cost.

In effect taxes will have to go up.
 

mbhkey

Banned
Feb 17, 2004
32
0
0
30
Penhold
hifisex said:
how do you figure mbhkey?

they could legalize crack/meth/smack tomorrow and I would have NO inclination to try them even once.....if they legalized pot I wouldn't smoke anymore than I do today.....and I don't think I'm all that different than most people....

as for legalizing prostitution...FH is bang on!


HFS
I never said anything about new users.

Let me ask you this: Will the consumption of alcohol go down if it was made illegal to possess, sell and drink it?
 

mbhkey

Banned
Feb 17, 2004
32
0
0
30
Penhold
hifisex said:
No....not at all.....prohibition proved that point.

HFS
So you’re saying that the same amount of alcohol will be consumed when it is made illegal.

So having no alcohol at bars, nightclubs, sports events, etc will not decrease consumption.

Closing down liquor stores will not decrease consumption.

This goes against my logic. Can you please explain your logic? Maybe I am just looking at it from a wrong angle.
 

HaywoodJabloemy

Dissident
Mar 6, 2004
254
0
0
Never the safest place
Is Justice Minister Cotler on our side?

A day or two after that first article, there was an interesting follow-up story in The Province. When speaking to UBC law students, Federal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler praised the Pivot Legal Society report and said, "It is time for a partnership by federal, provincial and municipal authorities to achieve the protection of sex-trade workers against exploitation, violence and abuse" through "law reform."

That sounds like he favours decriminalization. That's what they did in New Zealand last year,
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisp...ection=&thesecondsubsection=&reportid=1162602

and before that in much of Australia.
http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSWeirdNews0201/21_aust-ap.html

Why not in Canada?
 

williewheeler

Bionic Member
May 30, 2002
500
0
0
YVR
my 2¢

Saphire: until the federal government gets around to appointing more liberal (as opposed to "Liberal") justices to the Supreme Court of Canada, the good justices are always going to invoke section 1 of the Charter, as they have in almost all previously considered cases involving prostitution, as to do otherwise would mean reversing themselves, and the S.C.C. rarely does that! So, it is up to the government, and quite frankly, I don't think Paul Martin has the testosterone to legalize prostitution.

Haywood: Exactly! Why not in Canada?!

mbhkey: give me a break!

Dufferin: great question - anybody know the answer?
 

HaywoodJabloemy

Dissident
Mar 6, 2004
254
0
0
Never the safest place
hifisex said:
one of the most galling inequities of prostitution laws is the municple licensing of escorts and massage parlors...
That's been going on for a long time in most of the country. It seems as though what they are doing is selling licences to commit a criminal offence (living off the avails, or keeping a common bawdy house). Maybe we should be confronting municipal politicians more often about this situation. Either they would have to acknowledge this fact and therefore probably agree that the business should be decriminalized, or make themselves look stupid or dishonest if they pretend to not know that these types of businesses are the sex trade. Read Lynne Kennedy's awkward and silly attempt to justify it in this story.
http://missingpeople.net/how_cities_'license'_off-street_hookers-june_16,_2002.htm

New Zealand and Australia had the same situation that we have, and realizing the dishonesty was a major factor that led to decriminalization. From this article:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisp...ialogue&thesecondsubsection=&reportid=1162602

"a fantastical concept of a massage parlour (which was in effect a state-endorsed front for prostitution)".
 
Last edited:

Julie

New member
Nov 4, 2003
10
0
0
Prostitution laws need study
Cotler


Suzanne Fournier
The Province
March 3, 2004



Federal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler pledged yesterday to investigate whether anti-prostitution laws are constitutional.

Speaking to University of B.C. law students, Cotler acknowledged the "horrendous" victimization of prostitutes in Vancouver, with 65 missing women, 22 first-degree murder charges against Robert Pickton and the alleged sexual assault of up to 60 women by Donald Bakker.

Cotler praised the Pivot Legal Society's report Monday on the plight of prostitutes in Vancouver.

He said the 91 affidavits from prostitutes gathered by Pivot could provide the underpinning for a Parliamentary committee to hold hearings on prostitution or for a court challenge of the constitutionality of prostitution laws.

The report gives "expression to voices that will be part of the evidence Parliament will consider on this issue . . . and an important and worthwhile initiative for law students to undertake," he said. "It is time for a partnership by federal, provincial and municipal authorities to achieve the protection of sex-trade workers against exploitation, violence and abuse" through "law reform . . . and comprehensive social intervention."

Cotler said his first step will be to reactivate a parliamentary subcommittee on soliciting laws.

Prostitution is legal but Pivot argues in its report that laws that forbid bawdy houses or "communicating for the purposes of prostitution" force sex workers into dangerous places where they lack adequate time or protection to assess clients.

Pivot author Katrina Pacey, a UBC third-year law student, argues in the report that the laws surrounding prostitution violate the Charter rights of prostitutes to freedom of expression, liberty and security of the person.
 

williewheeler

Bionic Member
May 30, 2002
500
0
0
YVR
having just checked my handy dandy Criminal Code of Canada, I have to disagree with frankly huge's comment that suicide is illegal. It is not, at least in Canada, and further, has not been for some length of years. Attempting suicide has not been illeagal since 1972 when Trudeau was in power and it was recognized that there was very little that criminal provisions could do to stop someone from attempting suicide or doing it again. What is illegal is counselling someone to commit suicide and asisting someone who wants to commit suicde .

additionally, rape is no longer a term used in the CCC. it is called "sexual assault".
 

HaywoodJabloemy

Dissident
Mar 6, 2004
254
0
0
Never the safest place
Libby Davies and Dan Gardner articles

The Vancouver Sun had an editorial yesterday (Fri., Mar. 12) by Libby Davies.

"New laws needed to protect sex trade workers from violence"

Ottawa Citizen had another interesting article on Wed., Mar. 10 by Dan Gardner, who shares similar opinions and has written about this subject before.
"No simple way to end sex trade"

Was anyone able to find the whole articles online?
 

Sir Woodster

Reincarnating
Mar 5, 2004
735
1
0
Victoria
Perhaps willie could check his copy of the Criminal Code - in my copy there is no law against the exchange of money for sex which is the classic definition of prostitution.

Prostitution is legal in Canada, in most states south of the border it is not.

Where the problems come in Canada relate to the laws around "communication in a public place for the purposes of", "living off the avails of" and the good old "common bawdy house" laws - these are the ones that the article in the very first post refer to.
 

HaywoodJabloemy

Dissident
Mar 6, 2004
254
0
0
Never the safest place
The two articles I mentioned are now on the website of Libby Davies.

http://libbydavies.ca/mpupdate/media.html

That's kind of odd that it's exactly the same two articles I pointed out, although obviously the one that she wrote would be there. Makes you think it can't be a co-incidence. Did one of you have something to do with this?
 

williewheeler

Bionic Member
May 30, 2002
500
0
0
YVR
Woodster is exactly right. The CCC does not prohibit the exchange of money for sex services. What is does sanction is as the man says: "communication for the purposes of". The confusion creeps in because LE usually uses the communication about the fee involved as the grounds to arrest on this charge, not the simple discussion of whether a guy wants sex, and what the lady is willing to provide, although they will use this if the john is a little slow or reluctant to talk money.

The other ones are "living off the avails"- primarily aimed at pimps or possibly madams, and "keeping a common bawdy house". The later is very rare, and strictly speaking does not apply only to sex. There's a very famous case about a guy renting a hotel room for a high stakes card game (don't remember offhand if it was for poker or otherwise). The organizer was charged with the bawdy house provision.

Some SPs justify outcall only as a means to prevent being charged under the "bawdy house" provision. As long as it's consenual sex between 2 adults, very unlikely that any charges would be laid with regard to this provision.

Advice to boyfriends living with SPs: theoretically you can be charged with living off the avails....

The main point of all this of course is that generally speaking, as long as neighbours aren't complaining, LE would rather the trading of the money, the discussion of services, and the act itself be behind closed doors. Thus, unless you are in a MP that is open past curfew, it's unlikely you'll ever run into the "bawdy house" provisions.

As for "study" of the issues, I once had a prof who had bookshelves of materials on prostitution in Canada and elsewhere, many of which were written or edited by him; a "life's work", if you will. I don't think there needs to be any further study. The government needs to legalize it, have it moved indoors in safe, regulated places, and provide regular testing and other healthcare services for the workers and customers. If this means a surcharge on the "going rate" in order to ensure and pay for "safe" sex (not just in terms of disease), then so be it....
 

HaywoodJabloemy

Dissident
Mar 6, 2004
254
0
0
Never the safest place
I think the fact that the current laws (except for the one about public communicating) are not being enforced very much is something that should be stressed more by those of us arguing for changes.

These are serious criminal offences for which people can be sent to prison. Yet authorities now knowingly let most of those breaking these laws get away with it most of the time. And strangely the worst reaction any of us have to this is to say it's a little hypocritical.

The enforcement of these laws has become unclear, uneven, and therefore unfair. I think if this situation existed with anything other than prostitution, the ambiguity would have been cleared up long ago.

One problem that no one in Canada ever mentions is how easily this kind of ambiguity can enable corruption. When the laws become as irrelevant as they are, we are by default letting police make up and enforce their own laws. I don't know whether we currently have a big problem with corruption, but I don't think it's wise to assume that it can never happen here. It took an inquiry in one state and a royal commission in another for Australians to realize that their similar systems had been corrupt for many years. Either Canadian police are incredibly trustworthy, or Canadians are just too naive or lazy to ask questions.

From what little I've read on the subject, it seems as though the revelations of corruption in Australia were a more important factor leading to decriminalization than concern for the safety of sex workers, as callous as that may sound.
 

rickoshadows

Just another member!
May 11, 2002
905
0
16
60
Vancouver Island
I watched a program not to long ago about a case of a woman arrested under the, then new solicitation law which went all the way to the supreme court. John Crosbie was then the Minister of Justice who commissioned a report which recommended the legalization of prostitution. But the conservative government under Mulrooney did not think the Canadian electorate would buy it, so it was never tabled in the house. But look on the bright side, SPs aren't charging GST. :)

rickoshadows
 

HaywoodJabloemy

Dissident
Mar 6, 2004
254
0
0
Never the safest place
From a National Post editorial on Thursday:
"Irwin Cotler, the Justice Minister, announced publicly that he wants to review prostitution laws... Mr. Cotler said sex-trade workers ought to be protected from "exploitation, violence and abuse" and gave every indication is that he's looking to loosen the laws. Such changes would be welcome, but no specifics have been offered and there is a very real danger that here too the changes will fall well short of serious reform."
They criticized Cotler for not being specific enough about what changes should be made, and assumed the changes would "fall short of serious reform." Isn't the Post usually a conservative newspaper? I guess it's a good sign when even they advocate serious reform.
 
Vancouver Escorts