Prostitution Laws, let your voice be heard

[northcrunk]

Interesting note:

In the netherlands if you are disabled the government will pay for sexual services up to 12 times a year.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

Interesting note:

In the netherlands if you are disabled the government will pay for sexual services up to 12 times a year.

What if you were disabled by sexual services?

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Daradon

It was never illegal to buy, just that with other laws, there was a ton of grey area to charge both parties depending on how it all went down.

The supreme court ruling was specifically against how it made protecting oneself in that job harder than other. Since it was considered a job with the same rights as others, not having that right was unconstitutional.

So yeah, I guess your right. It's kinda like nothing on the challenge, although it does introduce new laws on the purchasing side.

The new proposed laws don't do anything to address that, in fact it might make it harder by criminalizing only the purchasing aspect and prohibiting advertising for prostitution. This will just keep everything underground as it's always been and keeps the danger ever present.

What are the chances of the supreme court striking down the new law under the same basis as the old one?

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by troutman

What if you were disabled by sexual services?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

What are the chances of the supreme court striking down the new law under the same basis as the old one?

Any constitutional lawyers in the house?

I have the same concerns as you, this looks like it will inevitably be another waste of the court's time and resources, there is precious little substantive change in my opinion.

That first CBC link i posted has a copy of the proposed bill, but I haven't read the whole thing yet.

[photon]

Hand in an obviously crappy report hoping the teacher will give you more time?

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

The new proposed laws don't do anything to address that, in fact it might make it harder by criminalizing only the purchasing aspect and prohibiting advertising for prostitution. This will just keep everything underground as it's always been and keeps the danger ever present.

What are the chances of the supreme court striking down the new law under the same basis as the old one?

Wasn't arguing that they did. And definitely agree with your reasoning, as I was even thinking it aloud earlier. Only that, they didn't do 'nothing', they did introduce new laws and clear up some of the confusion in the earlier grey areas.

I do agree though, it doesn't do much about the Supreme Courts quandary, and it may even get challenged again. I also think it does make things more dangerous and is a step backwards, but I did mention that already.

[Flash Walken]

Wow, just clicking through CBC links, they are running a poll on the new proposed legislation.

Currently, 89% of respondents say "No" to the question of "Do you support the government's new prostitution laws?"

http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/politics...politics-blog/

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Seems like a HUGE step backwards and very concerning to women in a human rights perspective. Don't like it at all.

That should be Canada's tagline on criminal legislation since about 2006.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by flameswin

That should be Canada's tagline on criminal legislation since about 2006.

Agreed.

Damn neo-cons.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Wow, just clicking through CBC links, they are running a poll on the new proposed legislation.

Currently, 89% of respondents say "No" to the question of "Do you support the government's new prostitution laws?"

http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/politics...politics-blog/

Grain of salt, obviously that's going to be skewed. CBC readers are going to poll that way for sure, and others, probably won't be at that site.

But I do imagine it's still probably 60-40 or 65-35. Maybe even 70-30.

[_Q_]

This bill is so dumb.

[prime333]

Anyone know what the key points of the bill are?

[Daradon]

Well, the key point now is that purchasing is an illegal offense.

A lot of the laws around children have also been tightened up, including doubling the term, from five to ten years, for purchasing sex from a child. Which obviously no one in their right mind can argue against in theory. It's a good thing.

However in practice, in making laws against some of these practices and making things more punishable or more clear, it does seem to open up other grey areas, and definite safety problems.

For instance, asked point blank on whether two teenaged prostitutes staying with each other (to keep each other safe) could be punished for encouraging sex with kids, MacKay answered yes it's possible they could.

It's things like this which make it apparent it's going to have the reverse effect of what the government says it wants (if that's in fact what it wants, which I'm beginning to seriously question) in keeping women and girls safe.

[prime333]

Does this Bill also target high-end escort services that advertise online/inprint?

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by prime333

Does this Bill also target high-end escort services that advertise online/inprint?

It would appear to. Forcing them out of safe places, and into streets.

The question was asked about 'massage parlors'. MacKay tried to avoid specifics as much as he could on many of the hard questions as politicians do.

[SebC]

How is it even possible that a law that addresses exactly none of the reasons the Supreme Court threw out the previous law could take effect? Isn't there some kind of mechanism that keeps parliament from simply passing unconstitutional law after unconstitutional law after unconstitutional law?

We can't turf these idiots fast enough.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by photon

Hand in an obviously crappy report hoping the teacher will give you more time?

More like start with a ridiculously absurd position so that follow-up, slightly less absurd position seems like a compromise.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by SebC

How is it even possible that a law that addresses exactly none of the reasons the Supreme Court threw out the previous law could take effect? Isn't there some kind of mechanism that keeps parliament from simply passing unconstitutional law after unconstitutional law after unconstitutional law?

We can't turf these idiots fast enough.

You know, I've never bought into the Conservative hidden-agenda stuff that the opposition likes to trot out from time to time. There's nothing hidden about it. This government is just woefully inept at handling social issues.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You know, I've never bought into the Conservative hidden-agenda stuff that the opposition likes to trot out from time to time. There's nothing hidden about it. This government is just woefully inept at handling social issues.

I didn't buy into it for so long either, but some of the decisions they've made since the majority really really make me wonder.

I don't think I've ever been so pissed at a ruling party in Canada. The Liberals sure looked horrible when they 'passed the torch' in early 2000's, but I can't think of them ever so strong arming their base policies through government as much as these Conservatives have. Trying to change the country so much. There's always budget problems. Every party has those. People never agree where it should go, and there's never enough. But it feels like the Conservatives are actively trying to change the culture of the country. :/

I may never vote Conservative again in my life. I know a lot of people on the board have me pegged as a Liberal anyway, but I've voted Conservative (Reform/Alliance) more than any other party. Far more actually.