Prostitution Laws, let your voice be heard

[Daradon]

Obviously a Liberal biased article, but I did find this...

'Françoise Boivin, the NDP MP for Gatineau, initially said she wanted to study the new prostitution bill before commenting in detail.


Today, the NDP justice critic called upon the government to refer it to the Supreme Court of Canada to see if it will withstand a challenge under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.'


http://www.straight.com/news/660346/...pe-sex-workers


To be fair, it hasn't been a week yet.

[Parallex]

Personally, I don't have any problem with that quote, or that it was Harper that said it (If he said it, which he probably did but I can't find the source). I'd have no problem if Trudeau or Murclair or any of them were to have said it. I mean really, what else is a politician supposed to say... "By the time I'm done you'll have no indication I was ever here"?

All leaders like to envision themselves as transformative.

[GP_Matt]

I guess I have a poor sense of time.

It does look like the other parties support the bill in its current form.

That, or they are against it but are not willing to take a position because this is a polarizing topic.

[Daradon]

Well the presser was two days ago so...

The opposition parties could be taking time to understand it better. Or they could be wasting time, consulting polls and such.

Probably a little of both.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

There has been a ton of Conservative bashing on this thread, and I don't disagree with it. But I have yet to see anyone showing what the Liberals and NDP are proposing.
Has either party come out with an actual solution that isn't just a negative attack on the Conservatives.

I don't think it's conservative bashing, it's policy bashing. Many of the outspoken 'conservative bashers' in this thread are conservative voters. Calling it 'conservative bashing' is a license to suspend critical thinking about the issue and policy.

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

In fairness, I don't think anyone expected the Conservatives to go down this path. the Supreme Court just told them that they can't enact legislation that puts prostitutes at risk, so they come back with legislation that puts prostitutes at risk.

Why would the Liberals or NDP come up with a plan to counter the mind-boggling unbelievable?

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

True, it would be unfair to expect them to have a new plan already, but have they commented at all to suggest what they would prefer? The law has been out for a week so it is plenty of time for them to come up with a constructive response.

Evidence of what I mentioned up top. The other parties aren't the sitting government tasked with proposing a law that doesn't violate the rights of sex workers in the country, as decreed by the supreme court. It's one of the benefits of having a majority in parliament. You can do whatever you want.

Having said that:

OTTAWA - First it was pot; now it's prostitution.

Liberals broke new ground at their last national policy convention, becoming the first federal party to advocate legalizing, regulating and taxing marijuana.

And now some Grits want the party to take the same approach to the world's oldest profession.

British Columbia Liberals are proposing a resolution for the party's next national convention aimed at ensuring sex trade workers are legally able to run a "safe and successful business," which would be licensed to safeguard employees, employers and clients and taxed just like "any other commercial enterprise."

The resolution was initiated last year by Young Liberals in B.C. and was later adopted by the provincial branch of the federal party as one of 10 priority resolutions it would like to see debated at the national convention in Montreal next month.

It's not certain at this point that the resolution will make it to a vote, although it will at least be debated in a policy workshop. Nor is it certain that it will garner the support of convention delegates or the party's leader, Justin Trudeau, who has said nothing on the subject since the country's prostitution laws were struck down last month by the Supreme Court of Canada.

But in a sign of just how politically risky such a move could be, Justice Minister Peter MacKay pounced Wednesday on the resolution's very existence to accuse the Liberals of wanting to "enhance Canadians' exposure to harm."

"I do not believe that government facilitating increased access to drugs and the sex trade is the right thing to do for Canadians — especially not for our most vulnerable citizens, our children," MacKay said in a statement.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/01...n_4600307.html

"The priority of the Liberal party ... around our policy convention in February in Montreal is on economic success for the middle class. That is the centre of our focus," he said during a campaign stop with a provincial Liberal byelection candidate in Thornhill, Ont.

He noted that the prostitution resolution is just one of many to be debated at the convention and said he looks forward to hearing what Liberals have to say on the subject.

The debate is timely given that the Supreme Court has thrust the prostitution issue back onto the federal political agenda.

The top court last month struck down the country's prostitution laws as unconstitutional and gave Parliament a year in which to come up with a new legal regime to govern the sex trade. The court ruled that the current prohibitions on brothels, street solicitation and living off the avails of prostitution create life-threatening conditions for prostitutes, violating their right to life, liberty and security of the person.

"For now, I'm just very, very mindful that the Supreme Court came down very clearly that the current approach is not protecting extremely vulnerable women and sex workers and we need to make sure that we are finding a way to keep vulnerable Canadians protected from violence that surrounds prostitution but also is intrinsic to prostitution," Trudeau said.

In French, Trudeau went further, saying it's important to recognize that "prostitution itself is a form of violence against women." He called for a "responsible, informed debate" on the issue.

Trudeau also said Liberals are "certainly going to look at" the so-called Nordic model, which penalizes those who purchase sex, not those who sell it.

Conservatives have used the mere existence of the resolution to attack Trudeau for wanting to legalize both pot and prostitution. Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino, a former Ontario police chief, waded into the fray Thursday.

"Justin Trudeau's Liberals have been clear: making prostitution and illegal drugs more accessible to Canadians are their priorities," Fantino said in a written statement.

"Under the leadership of Prime Minister (Stephen) Harper, our government is focused on protecting our communities from the effects of illegal drugs and vulnerable women from the harmful effects of legalized prostitution."

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair, attending a caucus strategy session in Ottawa, did not directly respond when asked if he'd consider legalizing prostitution. He said the issue is complex and needs to be studied by a parliamentary committee, hearing from police, health experts, community groups and sex trade workers.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/just...tion-1.2500357

OTTAWA — Internal opposition to legalizing prostitution sparked a last-minute deal to defer the issue at the NDP policy convention Saturday.

A proposal to repeal prostitution laws in order to uphold sex workers’ “rights to life, liberty, security and equality” was slated to be voted on Saturday afternoon.

But behind the scenes, party members opposing the motion pushed for it to be delayed. A compromise was reached and Vancouver East MP Libby Davies moved an amendment calling on the proposal to be put off for further study.

“We need to build a consensus and we need to do this the right way,” Davies told the crowd.

The amendment was passed.

Legalizing sex work will now be studied by the party’s federal council. It must report back by November with a policy, but it will not go before the membership until the party’s next policy convention.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/...n-prostitution

[WilsonFourTwo]

But in a sign of just how politically risky such a move could be, Justice Minister Peter MacKay pounced Wednesday on the resolution's very existence to accuse the Liberals of wanting to "enhance Canadians' exposure to harm."

"I do not believe that government facilitating increased access to drugs and the sex trade is the right thing to do for Canadians — especially not for our most vulnerable citizens, our children," MacKay said in a statement

---
This annoys the hell out of me. You can argue about whether increasing access to drugs or the sex trade is the right thing to do, but to suggest that doing so puts our poor, precious, undefended children at some sort of extreme risk is just stupid.

Does anyone really see a 9-year old walking into a store, scoring some weed, and then visiting a brothel? Or perhaps they're worried that a 14 year old is going to end up working in the industries, which would surely be heavily regulated and monitored. I mean, every brewery and liquor store in town is fully staffed by kids in their school uniforms, right?

Not only does hiding behind the "Save our children!!" card make MacKay look foolish, it also implies that he has no real substantive argument against liberalization/legalization of marijuana and prostitution. How the heck are we supposed to debate the issue? State some f'n facts Peter so we can actually decide what to do.

[GGG]

The worry on legalized prostitution is that there is an increased rate of human trafficking. So while Canada children aren't likely significantly more at risk legalizing prostitution does put more of the worlds children at risk. I don't like the proposed law because it effectively forces prostitution into dark alleys even more so than now.

Nordic model is far superior to Canada proposal.

[Daradon]

The politicians were calling this very close to the Nordic model...

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by GGG

The worry on legalized prostitution is that there is an increased rate of human trafficking.

Would it? I'm thinking that if prostitution is legal, any victim of human trafficking would at least feel safer to contact the police. Even ask a John to help her, because if it was legal a John could walk into a police station and tell the police that the girl he was with last night may be here against her will.

Plus if it was legal, and all prostitutes had to be registered and have health checks, how would the victims of trafficking be able to work?

You said the current law pushes this further into the dark alleys; and I agree. Legalized it would be safer for everybody.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Would it? I'm thinking that if prostitution is legal, any victim of human trafficking would at least feel safer to contact the police. Even ask a John to help her, because if it was legal a John could walk into a police station and tell the police that the girl he was with last night may be here against her will.

Plus if it was legal, and all prostitutes had to be registered and have health checks, how would the victims of trafficking be able to work?

You said the current law pushes this further into the dark alleys; and I agree. Legalized it would be safer for everybody.

I quoted one study on the first page of this thread and a Google of legal prostitution human trafficking gives a wide variety of studies and opinions. So based on my reading I believe the link is real. Your above logic is why I support the Nordic model of selling being legal. It allows the prostitute to seek help without criminalizing them. Regulation would help but based on current results around the world it isn't working.

[SebC]

Yikes.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...ve-opposition/

A number of [Conservative] MPs who spoke to the National Post said there is unease among social conservative members of caucus that the new bill opens the door to making brothels legal. “Quite a number are not happy with it,” said one MP. “Conservatives have to keep up with the times but this is something our core has a big problem with. They see it as a social disease.”

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Daradon

The politicians were calling this very close to the Nordic model...

In that it makes buying illegal it is similar to the Nordic model.

However by banning online sale of prostitution you force it onto the streets or still making prostitutes commit crimes in order to conduct their business thus missing the entire point of the Nordic model and the entire point of the supreme courts overturning of the bill.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by GGG

In that it makes buying illegal it is similar to the Nordic model.

However by banning online sale of prostitution you force it onto the streets or still making prostitutes commit crimes in order to conduct their business thus missing the entire point of the Nordic model and the entire point of the supreme courts overturning of the bill.

Yeah, that's how I saw it too.

Keeping up with all the fine print though is a job and a half and I was just making sure.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Yeah, that's how I saw it too.

Keeping up with all the fine print though is a job and a half and I was just making sure.

I did the same thing, I read the headline and couldn't figure out the outrage as it looked like they just followed Sweden. part of the problem is the reporting is terrible on the details.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by GGG

I did the same thing, I read the headline and couldn't figure out the outrage as it looked like they just followed Sweden. part of the problem is the reporting is terrible on the details.

Another part of the problem is that Sweden's laws aren't very great either:

The Swedish government has admitted, in its own evaluation of its law, that criminalizing clients increases stigma against sex workers. For some reason, the Swedish government believes this increase in stigma “must be viewed as positive.”

http://ww2.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blo...ostitution-law

Just because it's Nordic, doesn't mean it's positive. The majority of people in Denmark and Norway especially believe that prostitution should be legitimised, that they should have a right to health care and unification. That the profession should be fully recognised and that the current laws are not properly protecting the people it was apparently set out to do.

So if you want the debate to evolve into that in 10-15 years, then sure, the current law is great. But the current law doesn't work, as proven by the countries who already have a version of it.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by GGG

I did the same thing, I read the headline and couldn't figure out the outrage as it looked like they just followed Sweden. part of the problem is the reporting is terrible on the details.

It seems the other part of the problem is that no one from the government is providing details, either.

I get that they are in the bill, but mostly it's been 'think of the children' and 'the liberals want to sell your kids hookers and blow'.

And from steep fines to jail sentences as high as five years, the government would try to send a message to johns that buying sex is a crime. But the law also has potential jail sentences of up to five years for sex workers who advertise.

The law, under which pimping is still a crime, continues the Conservative government’s tough-on-crime theme, including mandatory minimum sentences, longer maximums and protection of children and communities. The government also promised $20-million to support services aimed at getting prostitutes, whom the government appears to view as victims, out of sex work.

“This is sending a strong signal that we want to protect our communities and places where we raise our children,” Justice Minister Peter MacKay said after the government introduced the new law in the House of Commons.

He called the mixed approach of supports and punishments the “Canadian model,” an alternative to the decriminalization approach favoured by Germany, and the Nordic model of criminalizing only the johns. It must be debated and voted on before it takes effect.

Battle lines were drawn quickly. Evangelical and pro-family groups and conservative thinktanks such as the Macdonald-Laurier Institute applauded the new bill.

“Prostitution is inherently harmful,” said Benjamin Perrin, a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. “Exiting prostitution is the only way to truly protect prostitutes. This law will support exit.”

But sex workers and their legal advocates said the law would be vulnerable to a constitutional challenge on many fronts.

“Like any other business, we go where our clients are,” said Valerie Scott, one of the three sex workers who successfully challenged the old laws. “The clients are going to have to go into dark, out-of-the way alleys, and that’s where the sex workers are going to go. It’s easy to see how this will be problematic.” She said she is “chomping at the bit” to challenge the new law’s constitutionality.

Alan Young, who teaches law at Osgoode Hall Law School and led Ms. Scott’s legal fight, said the new law raises similar safety concerns.

“You can’t advertise, and now you’ve got to make this demographic decision about what areas of the city are not occupied by young people,” he said. “It still raises the question of what is a safe forum for someone to legally sell sexual services.”

In December, the Supreme Court struck down bans on street soliciting, bawdy houses and living off the avails of prostitutes. The unanimous court said those laws put sex workers in severe danger, citing the serial murders of Robert Pickton in British Columbia as an example. It also said the harm caused by the laws was out of proportion to the aim of trying to deter a social nuisance.

How much the government ceded to the Supreme Court’s safety concerns is a matter of dispute. The government would ban “indecent activity” rather than sex in bawdy houses. It would continue to criminalize pimps, but allow the hiring of accountants and bodyguards. And while it would partly ban street solicitation, its bans on advertising and enhancement of police powers would also extend the criminal law’s reach.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle18987982/

[Flash Walken]

And here is why this proposal is so contemptuous; it makes things worse and wastes court time and money where the only gain is in internal conservative politics. This is the ultimate example of political hackery. Proposing legislation that won't stand up to the unanimous court that ruled the same laws unconstitutional a year ago just to say you're tough on crime and a 'judicial activist' talking point.

Here is a look at some of the specific provisions in the proposed legislation:

Provision 213: “Stopping or impeding traffic and communicating to offer or provide sexual services for consideration”

There is only one part of the Communicating provision that is different than the pre-Bedford regime. What was previously section 213(1)(c) of the Code now applies only to communicating to offer sexual services in a public place that is or is next to a place where anyone under the age of 18 could "reasonably be expected to be present." This Communicating provision is only marginally narrower than what the Court struck down in Bedford, as it captures a broad range of places where communication is prohibited. All other aspects of section 213, including stopping or impeding traffic, remain criminalized and apply to everyone. These remain summary offences.

Key Considerations: As a result of this law, street-based sex workers will be the target of law enforcement and can be arrested. They will be displaced into dangerous and isolated parts of the city where they are more likely to work alone in order to avoid police detection. Sex workers will rush to get into vehicles without taking the time to screen clients and negotiate the terms of the transaction, resulting in much greater risk of harm. Sex workers will also face barriers to police protection, as a result of their criminalization.


Constitutional Implications: This amounts to a version of the Communicating law in Bedford that is only marginally narrower, and defies the spirit of the judgment, which was concerned with the displacement of sex workers and blocking their ability to screen clients for safety. All that will be required for police to surveil and target sex workers is the suggestion that a person under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present. This law will function in a highly similar fashion to the Communicating provision that the Bedford court struck down for creating dangerous circumstances, and it will violate section 7 of the Charter.

Provision 286: Prohibition against the purchase of sexual services: “Commodification of Sexual Activity”
s. 286.1(1): Obtaining Sexual Services for Consideration
This single aspect of the law is similar to the Nordic model, in that it applies to purchasing or communicating in order to obtain sexual services.

This provision criminalizes everyone in any place who purchases or communicates in order to obtain sexual services. This provision adds mandatory fines to all violations. Sanctions include mandatory minimum fines ranging from $500 to $4,000, and can include up to five years in jail. These new mandatory fines are higher for repeat offenders and for anyone who purchases sex in a place where a person under 18 could reasonably be found.

The addition of tough punishments for clients will force sex workers to go to great lengths in order to help their clients avoid these sanctions. This will recreate the dangerous conditions that the court in Bedford said made the criminal laws unconstitutional.

Key Considerations: Prohibiting the purchase of sexual services creates extremely dangerous conditions for sex workers. In Sweden, Norway and in Canadian cities where law enforcement is directed at clients, sex workers are displaced to unsafe areas, they cannot screen their clients, they lack access to police protection and they are less able to operate in safer indoor venues. In Norway, violence against sex workers increased following the enactment of the law. Two recent reports on sex work in Vancouver found that street-based sex workers are facing very dangerous working conditions as a result of law enforcement targeting clients.

Constitutional Implications: While criminalizing the purchase of sexual services is said to be aimed at protecting sex workers, this prohibition will have the same harmful impact as the current adult prostitution laws that were struck down in Bedford. For this reason, the ban on purchasing sex or communicating for the purpose to obtain sexual services violates the security of the person rights of sex workers, which are protected by section 7 of the Charter.

Provision 286.2: “Material Benefit from Sexual Services”
The new provision continues to criminalize those who gain material benefits from sex work. This replaces the “living on the avails” provision that was struck down in Bedford.

This version of the law does not apply to those in “legitimate living arrangements” or with “legal or moral obligations” to sex workers. It does apply to exploitative and abusive relationships, and to those in which a person supplies drugs or alcohol.

Key Considerations: Being able to work together or to employ safety services is a key component of a safer sex trade. This provision does not assist in making this more possible for most sex workers.

It will only apply to occasional ad hoc services for sex workers, and does not allow sex workers to establish regular secure conditions for themselves.

This definition of exploitation may be inconsistent with the experiences of sex workers and may capture relationships that actually enhance their safety. It is therefore likely that this provision will be found inconsistent with section 7 rights because of its application will be overbroad.

Constitutional Implications: This law still impairs the ability of sex workers to retain assistance in their work from employees or contractors. The provision applies to benefits received in the context of any commercial enterprise offering sexual services.

The bill also intrudes into personal relationships by exempting “legitimate living arrangements”.

This provision does not remedy the problem the SCC addressed by striking down the living on the avails provision. It introduces uncertainty, criminalizes relationships intended to improve safety, and recreates the same harms.

Provision 286.4: Advertising Sexual Services
The bill proposes to ban any advertising of sexual services, stating:

Everyone who knowingly advertises an offer to provide sexual services for consideration is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term on not more than 18 months.

Key Considerations:This is an entirely new provision that attempts to radically change the sex trade in Canada. Without the ability to advertise in newspapers, online, or other forms of media, sex workers will now have severely limited means for working safely indoors. This is particularly concerning given that the court in Bedford clearly found that the ability to operate in safer indoor venues is a key measure for sex workers to reduce their risks. This new provision does not ban working indoors itself, which is not surprising given that the Supreme Court of Canada clearly stated that such a law would violate the Charter. But this new provision makes the option of safer indoor work all but impossible.

We should also have serious doubts about the capacity of the state to enforce this law, and the extraordinary resources that such enforcement would require.

Constitutional Implications: By restricting the ability of sex workers to effectively work indoors, this provision engages sex workers section 7 rights in that increases the risks faced by sex workers. It also violates sex worker’s section 2(b) rights by restricting their freedom of expression. This is a very misguided law, which is contrary to both the letter and spirit of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bedford. There is little question that Canadian courts would declare this new prohibition on advertising to be unconstitutional.

http://www.pivotlegal.org/the_new_se...tion_explained

Infuriating.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by strombad

Another part of the problem is that Sweden's laws aren't very great either:



http://ww2.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blo...ostitution-law

Just because it's Nordic, doesn't mean it's positive. The majority of people in Denmark and Norway especially believe that prostitution should be legitimised, that they should have a right to health care and unification. That the profession should be fully recognised and that the current laws are not properly protecting the people it was apparently set out to do.

So if you want the debate to evolve into that in 10-15 years, then sure, the current law is great. But the current law doesn't work, as proven by the countries who already have a version of it.

This ignores human trafficking increases and only focuses on local prostitutes.
There are definitely issues with the Nordic model. The living off the avails chunk of it needs to be permitted somehow to still criminalize pimping but allow protection.

If you look at where Sweden is still failing its when prostitutes are still Criminalized. Things like anti bawdy house laws.

[strombad]

I'm simply not quite sure why you're stating things like "I don't know why people are outraged, it's similar to the Nordic model" when citizens, especially liberals, in those countries generally do not like the laws either. It's not as though those laws are highly successful or well respected.

[jammies]

Any law that outlaws a form of commerce necessarily increases the risk to anyone engaging in such commerce. Whether the clients or the prostitutes are the ones committing an illegal act is irrelevant, once one party has a huge disincentive to be transparent to the law, both parties must hide their participation or the transactions simply don't take place. So all this law does is move around the reason to not talk to the police, ever. Good job, morons.