Sex laws under attack

[susi]

Sex laws under attack
By DHARM MAKWANA

http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/News/national/2009/10/06/11316566-sun.html

A constitutional challenge before Ontario courts to strike down federal prostitution laws has local advocates wading into the argument.

The case, slated to start today, argues the existing laws puts sex-trade workers at risk of violence.

In response, equality seeking women's groups launched the Abolition Coalition yesterday in downtown Vancouver, calling for the decriminalization of sex-trade workers and the criminalization of purchasing of sex - a model adopted in Sweden.

Prostitution is legal in Canada but most activities surrounding it are not.

"Either we criminalize both the women in prostitution and johns and pimps, and as we do now enforce the law inconsistently, or we decriminalize it entirely," said coalition member and UBC law professor Janine Benedet.

Susan Davis, a Vancouver sex-trade worker in favour of dropping the laws, submitted an affidavit for the case outlining the dangers she faced working on the street.

"We're not looking for special treatment, or carte blanche on brothels," she said.

Instead, Davis wants the sex trade to be subject to standards of transparency and ethical review under government oversight.

A similar charter challenge brought forward by Vancouver-based Pivot Legal Society has stalled in B.C. Supreme Court.

 

[OscarMann]

standards of transparency

That is what is needed!

 

[HankQuinlan]

I wish them success. Just a few minutes ago, there was an intelligent interview on CBC radio on the topic with some BC professor explaining it to the host.

When the challenge is opposed by a combination of the Catholic Church and REAL Women, you know they are on the wrong side. If the Catholics are concerned about morality, they have an obvious place they can start.

 

[susi]

cool!i was just live on CTV newsnet...i hope i represented well....

 

[HankQuinlan]

cool! i was just live on CTV newsnet...i hope i represented well....

I saw the clip on the internet; you represented very well indeed. Good for you.

 

[susi]

thanks babe!!!

it meeans alot to me to represent properly and hope people would let me know if i offend them or anything....
love susie

 

[blazejowski]

Where can one find the clip online?

 

[susi]

it's under CTV new video on right hand side of page...scroll down ....last video.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...prostitution_091006/20091006?hub=TopStoriesV2

 

[PrickAssO]

Thanks for posting that link! Great job! It is awesome to have someone like you come out and articulate the needs of sex workers and show how the current legislation causes harm.

 

[Stella_Hardon]

This is a going to be a total waste of the taxpayers dollars.

Are we talking 56 witnesses ?
This is a problem with the LEGISLATION.
Odds are the judge will throw this back to the Legislature

The CTV interview with the Dom was a waste of time, she sounded like an academy award winner wanting to thank the kids at Osgoode and the legal firm.

And there is a lot of verbiage on Perb saying how good all this is based on the CTV interview ???

Who is paying for this ?
What is the issue ?
What does "Subject to standards of transparency and ethical review under government oversight" actually mean ?
What will be the consequence of "de-criminalization" or "legalization" ?
Will this lawsuit make the sex trade "safer" ?

 

[Stella_Hardon]

Article in Vancouver Sun Friday Oct 9.2009

Butt out of prostitution debate, Ottawa tells court

TORONTO — There is a continuing debate about how to regulate prostitution, but it is not up to a court hearing a constitutional challenge of Canadian laws to decide what constitutes an ideal regime, a lawyer for the federal government said.

“This is not a public inquiry,” Michael Morris, a lawyer for the AttorneyGeneral of Canada, said Thursday.

Ottawa is opposing a challenge brought forward by three women in the sex trade who say provisions of the law violate their right to security and liberty by preventing them from working indoors or hiring people to protect them.
“The evidence demonstrates that there is no safe and secure setting to practice prostitution,” Morris told Justice Susan Himel of the Ontario Superior Court.

“No one’s security is in danger by following the law,” said Morris. “It’s only if you engage in the risky practice of prostitution . . . that security issues arise and not because of the law.”

He said there is no contradiction between the laws, which the applicants have argued are designed to get prostitutes off the street, but ban them from going indoors.

Printed and distributed by NewpaperDirect | www.newspaperdirect.com, US/Can: 1.877.980.4040, Intern: 800.6364.6364 | Copyright and protected by applicable law.

 

[Stella_Hardon]

" three women in the sex trade who say provisions of the law violate their right to security and liberty by preventing them from working indoors or hiring people to protect them.
“The evidence demonstrates that there is no safe and secure setting to practice prostitution,” Morris told Justice Susan Himel of the Ontario Superior Court. "

Question :

Who wants a hooker working in their building.
Who wants a hooker as their next door neighbour.
Who wants a pimp hanging around.

 

[susi]

my landlady knows what i do, and i am a discreet, considerte tenant. sex workers are great as neighbours fer christs sakes...now a micro operating 24/7...not so much ut the idea is no more micros...all legitimate businesses in commercial areas, not residential.

testimony in the case is over. i testified 2 or 3 years ago.so as far as costing tax money....too late to complain...it's spent.

what is really a waste of tax payer dollars is our government contesting it. just get it over with...the laws are going to fall.

why do you think we all have pimps? or do you think all men we know other than customers are pimps?

how weird comng from a memberof this board....my neighbours love me....

the issue is sex workers human right are being violated.....are you blind?

Article 26
1. all persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, color, sex, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

International Declaration of Human Rights
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person

Part III

Article 6
2. The states parties to the present Covenant recognize the right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts, and will take appropriate steps to safe guard this right.

also, we are fighting to prevent YOU, pooners from being criminalized. if our opposition have their way, consumers will be made criminal and you will all face this danger.

you're welcome

osggod law school and students are working on our case pro bono....so the only public money being spent is by our government trying to assert that the laws aren't killing people.

c'mon guys...how can you be a pooner, ex worker or worker and be so negative about the potential of a new legal approach to either create worse conditions or to actually level the playing field for all? pooners too....?

would you rather it continue? cudos to mr. pickton? have at her!! andrew evans williams. go ahead, canadians don't care!kill away!!

it seems you are jumping the gun and carrying a red herring as in....

sex workers are already your neighbours
sex workers are living in your building
sex workers are allowed to have loves and relations too and our SO's are not all pimps

pooners will benefit from decrim
pooners will experience less robberies and harm
pooners will have a mechanism to complain about unethical business practices
pooners confidentiality will be protected

i just don't understand why anyone here would be opposed to the challenge

 

[HankQuinlan]

" three women in the sex trade who say provisions of the law violate their right to security and liberty by preventing them from working indoors or hiring people to protect them.
“The evidence demonstrates that there is no safe and secure setting to practice prostitution,” Morris told Justice Susan Himel of the Ontario Superior Court. "

Question :

Who wants a hooker working in their building.
Who wants a hooker as their next door neighbour.
Who wants a pimp hanging around.

I am a bit puzzled. Aren't you an advocate for sex workers? ...at least on the stripper end of the industry? You have no compassion for your sisters who seek a safer way to ply their trade? It surprises me that you sound like a Salvation Army/REAL Women type that thinks it can be abolished.

...and actually, I would like a nice hooker as my next-door neighbour.

 

[CJ Tylers]

I like how the government uses the arguement that women shouldn't choose to engage in the sex trade, or else they deserve what they get. Survival sex trade workers don't really "choose" to do what they do... they didn't go to harvard to learn how to put on fuk-me boots and hang out on freezing street corners whilst choking on exhaust fumes and watching their own back in case someone jumps them.

Nope.

But the government thinks that whatever the case it, they're asking for it and they might as well suck it up.

Typical right wing moralistic garbage... but hey, if a billionaire needs a tax break so he can buy the 25th porche for his 50 car garage...open up them purse strings!

 

[CJ Tylers]

I think the implication is that it isn't the hooker so much you might mind, but the constant flow of traffic. That's also assuming she's on the up and up...and not one of the fucked up ones that parties or does other wacky stuff.

Then again, if she comes over to your place to party...hmmm... nah... still not cool... but she's in sexy heels... wow, that'd be a helluva choice to make

 

[Urquell]

You came across very well. Too bad that Terry Jean came off so badly. She should not be a spokesman for the cause.

 

[susi]

tanx babe!

i know it's import to me to be accessible and to not play into stereo types...know what i mean? like whipping...to us it's funny and we all get it but to an old knittin granny on the prarie? ....not so easy for her to grasp....

 

[myselftheother]

tanx babe!

i know it's import to me to be accessible and to not play into stereo types...know what i mean? like whipping...to us it's funny and we all get it but to an old knittin granny on the prarie? ....not so easy for her to grasp....

Susi...you really ought to run for office one day. Smart lady...great assets....

 

[HankQuinlan]

CBC National showed a segment last night on the challenge. A tour of "Mirage" studio of Vancouver, explaining the hypocricy of Burnaby pimping while the parlour is still being harassed by the police.

Then the talking head interviews -- a lawyer for the women challenging the laws, and a professor from Vancouver with a stick up her ass advocating the Swedish "solution" of criminalizing the Johns. She refused to admit there is a safety issue, saying that johns looking for streetwalkers will still be doing that, and that none of the women will move off the street. She also stated that legalization anywhere has resulted in total exploitation (completely overlooking New Zealand, for example).

We should pay more attention to this ... with the current federal government, they may well pass the legislation that she advocates. After all, it is "progressive" according to these fake womens' groups, and it meets the Cons moralistic agenda.

We will all be criminals (except for you poor exploited women, who can go to these same groups for help with "exit strategies").