the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act

101 posts / 0 new

Last post

Wed, 2022-10-19 01:21

Pondering

Edited to add my post 99 is a partial summation of my thoughts.

It came into force in 2014 and is now being challenged so I thought a review is in order. The short of it:

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/c36faq/

Q1. Is prostitution a legal activity?

A1. No. The effect of Bill C-36 is to criminalize prostitution. Prostitution is a transaction that involves both the purchase and the sale of sexual services. Bill C-36’s new offence that prohibits purchasing sexual services makes the prostitution transaction illegal.

This means that purchasing sexual services is illegal and businesses that profit from the prostitution transaction are also illegal.

Q2. Can a person purchase sexual services?

A2. Purchasing sexual services and communicating in any place for that purpose is now a criminal offence for the first time in Canadian criminal law. A person convicted of this new offence may be sentenced to up to 5 years imprisonment if prosecuted on indictment, and 18 months if prosecuted by summary conviction. Mandatory minimum fines also apply, including higher mandatory minimum fines if the offence is committed in a public place that is or is next to parks, schools, religious institutions or places where children can reasonably be expected to be present. A person convicted of purchasing sexual services from a person under the age of 18 years may be sentenced to up to 10 years imprisonment. Mandatory minimum penalties of 6 months imprisonment for a first offence and one year for subsequent offences also apply.

The new purchasing offence applies to transactions that take place over the Internet, such as paying someone to provide a sexual service in front of a webcam.

Q3. Can a person sell sexual services?

A3. The new prostitution laws do not criminalize the sale of sexual services. They also protect those who sell their own sexual services from criminal liability for any part they may play in the prostitution offences that prohibit purchasing sexual services, advertising those services, receiving a material benefit from the prostitution of others or procuring others for the purpose of prostitution.

This means that the new laws do not prevent sellers from taking certain safety measures, should they continue to sell sexual services. These safety measures include selling sexual services, whether independently or cooperatively, from fixed indoor locations, hiring legitimate bodyguards who do not engage in exploitative behaviour and negotiating safer conditions for the sale of sexual services in public places that are not near school grounds, playgrounds or day care centres. Communicating for the purposes of selling sexual services in public places that are or are next to school grounds, playgrounds or day care centres is a criminal offence with a maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment.

However, purchasers of sexual services are always criminalized for their role in the prostitution transaction. The new prostitution laws are intended to reduce both the purchase and the sale of sexual services.

Q4. The new purchasing offence prohibits “obtaining sexual services for consideration”. What is a “sexual service” and what does “obtaining a sexual service for consideration” mean?

A4. A “sexual service” is a service that is sexual in nature and whose purpose is to sexually gratify the person who receives it. “Obtaining a sexual service for consideration” involves an agreement for a specific sexual service in return for payment or another kind of consideration, including drugs or alcohol. It doesn’t matter whether payment is made by the person who receives the sexual service or by another person.

Activities that amount to “obtaining a sexual service for consideration”, if a person pays for them, include: sexual intercourse; masturbation; oral sex; lap-dancing, which involves sitting in a person’s lap and simulating sexual intercourse; and, sado-masochistic activities, provided that the acts can be considered to be sexually stimulating or gratifying.

Q5. Can a person advertise the sale of their own sexual services?

A5. The new advertising offence criminalizes advertising the sale of sexual services. But the new laws also protect from criminal liability a person who advertises the sale of their own sexual services. This means that the offence applies to people who advertise the sale of others’ sexual services, including in print media, on websites or in locations that offer sexual services for sale, such as erotic massage parlours or strip clubs.

The offence also applies to publishers or website administrators, if they know that the advertisement exists and that it is in fact for the sale of sexual services.

The new laws also allow the court to order the seizure of materials containing advertisements for the sale of sexual services, as well as their removal from the Internet, regardless of who posted them.

Q6. Can a person manage, work for, or otherwise participate in, a business that offers sexual services for sale?

A6. Receiving money or any other material benefit from the prostitution of others in the context of a commercial enterprise that offers sexual services for sale is a criminal offence. Such a commercial enterprise necessarily involves third parties who profit from the sale of others’ sexual services. This means that it is illegal to earn money, for example, by managing or working for a commercial enterprise, such as a strip club, massage parlour or escort agency, knowing that sexual services are purchased there.

But the new law protects from criminal liability people who receive money from the sale of their own sexual services. If the business does not involve anyone other than sellers of sexual services, who keep only the earnings from the sale of their own sexual services, and people who provide legitimate goods and services to them, the business is not a commercial enterprise. In these circumstances, the only person who commits an offence is the purchaser of sexual services.

Q7. Can a person live with another person who sells sexual services?

A7. The new laws do not prevent people who sell their own sexual services from entering into legitimate family relationships on the same basis as anyone else. This means that a family member or roommate of a person who sells their own sexual services does not commit an offence, unless the family member or roommate exploits the person who sells their own sexual services.

Q8. Can a person sell goods or services to people who sell their own sexual services?

A8. The new laws do not prevent people who sell their own sexual services from entering into legitimate business relationships on the same basis as anyone else. This means that a person who receives money for providing goods or services to a person who sells their own sexual services does not commit an offence as long as the goods or services are offered to the general public on the same terms and conditions and there is no exploitation.

If the person who receives money for providing goods and services to a person who sells their own sexual services does not offer the goods or services to the general public, but the amount of money received reflects the value of the good or service provided, no offence is committed as long as the person who provided the goods or services does not encourage the other person to sell sexual services and there is no exploitation.

Q9. Can a person accept gifts or other things from people who use the earnings they made from selling their own sexual services to buy them?

A9. The new laws do not prevent people who sell their own sexual services from interacting with others on the same basis as anyone else. This means that a person who receives gifts or other things from a person who sells their own sexual services does not commit an offence, as long as there is no exploitation.

Q10. Why do the new laws make prostitution illegal, instead of legalizing prostitution and regulating it?

A10. Recent international studies show that jurisdictions that have decriminalized or legalized prostitution have larger sex industries and higher rates of human trafficking for sexual exploitation than those that seek to reduce the incidence of prostitution. This means that legalizing and regulating prostitution would result in more people being subjected to prostitution. Research shows that the majority of those who sell their own sexual services are women and girls and marginalized groups, such as Aboriginal women and girls, are disproportionately represented. Research also shows that prostitution is an extremely dangerous activity that poses a risk of violence and psychological harm to those subjected to it, regardless of the venue or legal framework in which it takes place, both from purchasers of sexual services and from third parties.

Bill C-36’s reforms target those who create the demand for sexual services, and those who capitalize on that demand. This approach is intended to protect the vulnerable people targeted by prostitution, the communities in which prostitution is practised and society itself, by sending a strong message that everyone is entitled to dignity and respect. Prostitution allows men, who are primarily the purchasers of sexual services, paid access to female bodies. Condoning a clearly gendered practice by legalizing and regulating it would demean and degrade the human dignity of all women and girls. The human body is not a commodity to be bought and sold.

For more information on the law reform implemented by Bill C-36 and the research on which it is based, please see: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/protect/index.html.

Wed, 2022-10-19 02:20

Pondering

Massage parlors and escort services still serve as fronts. I'm wondering why more of them aren't run by sex workers themselves unless they are and I'm just not hearing about it.

Recent international studies show that jurisdictions that have decriminalized or legalized prostitution have larger sex industries and higher rates of human trafficking for sexual exploitation than those that seek to reduce the incidence of prostitution. This means that legalizing and regulating prostitution would result in more people being subjected to prostitution.

I think therein lies the crux of the issue. Sex workers claim it is a job like any other and should be treated as such, but I don't know of any other job that speaks of survivors and exit services.

"This approach is intended to protect the vulnerable people targeted by prostitution" who are the most disadvantaged women and girls in society. They get lured by the money and once in it is hard to get out. Even after they get out some lapse because the money is hard to resist even if you feel dehumanized. Girls aging out of the system are prime targets. Girls who have been sexually abused are over-represented.

As I see it as long as women are discreet they can advertise themselves as escorts then once contact is made do whatever negotiating they believe somehow protects them once they are in a room alone with the man. Sex workers can even hire drivers and guards. There are sugar daddy sites.

It seems a reasonable compromise between discouraging expansion which would mean more women being victimized and the nomalization of sex as a commodity and total illegality in the form of arresting sex workers. It is in the interests of society to discourage sex work so it remains illegal for men to buy sexual services or exploit a sex worker but the sex worker can still hire help. Family is protected from prosecution.

I have read that Vancouver has a constructive relationship with the sex worker community. I hope they have the same with the drug community. I think enforcement should be sensitive to the community being served but that is also true of the homeless. Police reform is a whole other topic.

The law is not ideal from anyone's perspective. There are loopholes large enough for trucks to drive through. I suspect it made little difference other than preventing expansion.

I like the communication between police and the community being served. I want police to focus their energy on exploitative situations, luring, violence.

Wed, 2022-10-19 11:35

(Reply to #2) #3

Bacchus

Pondering wrote:

I think therein lies the crux of the issue. Sex workers claim it is a job like any other and should be treated as such, but I don't know of any other job that speaks of survivors and exit services.

Cops, Firefighters, Paramedics, Hospital workers, social workers, solders. All professions staffed by volunteers not draftees

Wed, 2022-10-19 14:20

(Reply to #3) #4

Pondering

Bacchus wrote:
Pondering wrote:

I think therein lies the crux of the issue. Sex workers claim it is a job like any other and should be treated as such, but I don't know of any other job that speaks of survivors and exit services.

Cops, Firefighters, Paramedics, Hospital workers, social workers, solders. All professions staffed by volunteers not draftees

We have professions that subject people to trauma but they are all services that are deemed essential to protecting or saving lives. The possible trauma workers might experience is inherent to the job as they are either risking their lives or witnessing extreme suffering. The potential for trauma is unavoidable.

We have labour laws protecting workers from all forms of harm and have outlawed other industries such as asbestos. We don't allow businesses to freely sell harmful or dangerous products or experiences. Commerce is regulated due to its potential for exploitation of workers and harm to society.

Some women may volunteer to be sex workers but women don't volunteer to be drafted into prostitution. We know that prostitution and trafficking of women and girls increases where prostitution is legalized or decriminalized. Saying we have laws to deal with that is immaterial if those laws don't manage to stop it.

Migrants from desperately poor areas of the world will willingly travel to Canada to become sex workers. It is still trafficking to bring them here. They are still subject to deportation like anyone else working in Canada illegally.

New Zealand is often brought up as an example but it is a fairly isolated country of 5 million people and there are easier countries to go to for prostitution. Non-citizens are not permitted to do it as a job. People on student visas as an example. The situation is entirely different than what could or would exist in Canada especially with our high and increasing levels of immigration.

That some women would like to do this as a job doesn't supercede the interests of society in protecting the percentage of women who would unavoidably be harmed and rejecting the acceptance of sexual access to women as a commodity men are entitled to.

I will return to the point that prostitution in Canada is far from shut down. If an adult woman wants to advertise herself as an escort she can meet men at a coffee shop to screen them. After that they can exchange numbers or whatever. Sex workers can get together and form a joint screening system. They can rent an apartment together. They can form a co-op massage parlour or escort service. An escort service for independent workers would be really cheap to set-up. Wouldn't even need a physical office. Use it to screen men. Once contact is made the rest is up to the escort who is free to reject the date.

You can't even say the law has loopholes. It has all kinds of exceptions that puts the power in the hands of the sex worker who is not breaking the law.

Is'n there is some kind of sex worker association that could band workers together to form co-ops? The laws require that sex workers employ discretion to protect their clients from arrest but it does not seem all that difficult to achieve.

The law discourages street-walking, prevents blatant advertising and discourages exploitation by 3rd parties.

Streetwalking is not made safer by leaning in a car window and chatting. Pickton's victims went to party.

Generally speaking, with few exceptions, whenever a woman is alone with a man he has enormous power over her. She can be easily silenced and overcome. We regularly put trust in men that are relatives, friends and co-workers. Sadly that trust is all too often misplaced but the abuse is generally limited to sexual intimidation or at worst rape. We get pressured by intimate partners to do things we don't like but can usually refuse without suffering physical consequences.

If a man is intent on abusing women hiring one willing to be alone with him is the easiest route. As long as no one knows they are together he has free rein. Once you are in a car you are in trouble. In a house you have no chance. The existence of a panic button doesn't mean you can reach it.

Survivors say they were willing but were still emotionally traumatized. There is a higher prevalence of women who were previously abused sexually and of disadvantaged women. It is very class based with few minority women experiencing the pretty woman version or making enough money to crawl out of poverty.

The student working her way through college or independent woman who thinks "why not get paid for it?" should not have too much difficulty finding and protecting prospective clients. Sex workers themselves are totally free to set up online communication channels, message boards, where they can organize freely without fear of arrest.

I think a balance has been struck between abolition and establishment as an industry.

Thu, 2022-10-20 09:39

Pondering

Fortunately for women this organization has been involved and is well-funded enough to hire NANOS.

https://www.lawc.on.ca/advocacy-and-activism-1#:~:text=It's%20the%20Law%20%E2%80%93%20Bill%20C,venue%2C%20an%20offence%20is%20committed.

https://www.nanos.co/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2020-1689-LAWC-July-Popu...

Canadians are five times as likely to support than oppose Canada’s prostitution legislation, which does not criminalize women and others who sell sex, but makes makes pimping, trafficking, buying sex and brothel ownership/operation illegal.
A majority of Canadians agree that provincial and federal government should provide appropriate funding to organizations working with women in prostitution to provide long-term counselling and support services.
• Canadians most frequently think forcing someone to sell sex or all aspects of prostitution are illegal – Asked which aspects of prostitution are illegal in Canada, 47 per cent of Canadians say forcing someone to sell sex, followed by 43 per cent who say all the listed aspects, a third each who say owner operators of brothels (33%) or buying sex (33%), and seven per cent who say selling sex. Eight per cent reported they are unsure, and one percent said none of these are illegal.
• Canadians most frequently report supporting the equality model where selling sex is legal but other aspects are not – Just under half of Canadians (46%) support the equality model approach to prostitution, where those selling sex are not prosecuted and selling sex is legal but trafficking, pimping, brothel owner-operators and sex buyers are criminalized, while almost one quarter (24%) support prostitution as a legal profession, where there are no laws against prostitution including against pimps, brothel owner-operators, sex buyers and those selling sex. Sixteen per cent of Canadians support making prostitution illegal and criminalizing all those involved in selling sexual services. Fourteen per cent are unsure. • Canadians are more likely to support rather than oppose Canada’s prostitution regulation – Asked to score their support for Canada’s prostitution legislation, called the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act (also known as Bill C36), which recognizes the inherent risks of violence and exploitation to those who engage in prostitution on a scale of seven strongly support to one strongly support, 49 per cent of Canadians support the law, which does not criminalize women and others for selling their own sexual services but makes pimping, trafficking, buying sex and brothel ownership/operation illegal (a rating of six or seven). Thirty per cent of Canadians gave a neutral rating ranging from three to five, while 11 per cent oppose the legislation rating it a one or two. Ten per cent are unsure.

Thu, 2022-10-27 17:48

susan davis susan davis's picture

It's been awhile since I had to go through so many threads on Babble to debunk anti sex work rhetoric....

Your assertions about what is legal, what is easy, what sex workers can do, how most sex workers don't choose, how sex workers can protect their clients....

over simplify the law - ignoring the stay away from chruches and schools, don't talk about sex work, don't have security, sex workers won't be arrested....

are all myth.... sex workers are being arrested and experiencing police violence and over surveillance.... sex workers cannot gather in groups to work more safely - we are identified as "clusters" by LE and then raided, arrested, detained, sometimes deported, humiliated in front of neighbors while being taken out in hand cuffs.... should I go on?

your "opinion" on what the law does and does not do has no baisis in the actually reality and practice of enforcing the law....

Frankly, it should matter what Canadians think or what Canadians feel about sex work....

Feelings have no place in this debate...

I could say I "feel" like the sky is green.... that does not make it so.....

polls are influenced by the anti sex work crusaders rhetoric, Canadians do not have correct information about sex work or sex workers or who we are and why we work....

because the anti sex work crusaders dominate the discourse... filling the space with myths and hatred.... belittling and diminishing the real lived experiences of people who are fighting for their rights....

Keep your opinions and feelings off my body.... my body my choice... i shouldn't be criminalized for making a free and informed choice to feed and house myself and my family.... and that's what this is.... the so called Nordic Model... it's criminaliztion... of sex work... of sex workers....

in direct conflict with International obligations at the UN - where decriminalization of sex work is supported in particular to reduce stigma and reduce vulnerabilities to HIV/ AIDS by UNHCR, UNAIDS, UNICEF, WLO, WHO, UNESCO, Amnesty.....and more....all support decrim.

Canada has given over $2 Billion in the global fight against HIV/AIDS and is a signor to the support for removal of all laws which create discrimination and vulnerbailities to HIV/AIDS.

https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/documents/2021/05-hiv-human-rights-f...

you can talk about your "feelings" all you like... it does not change the facts.

Sex Work will be decriminalized in this and all other UN Countries with time... maybe now, maybe later.....maybe you would like to be on the right side of history... maybe recognize that criminalization of sex workers causes widespread harm, is in direct conflict with UN priorities and is doing nothing to improve our safety OR reduce exploitation....

Thu, 2022-11-03 00:21

Pondering

Sex work is already decriminalized. I am on the right side of history in defending women's rights.

I believe the challenge to C 36 will fail because the failure of the previous law and the purpose of the new law are frequently misrepresented or so incomplete as to be misleading. It’s propaganda as are the claims that the NDP and Liberals promised to cancel C 36.

The objective of the old law was preventing public nuisance. Prostitution was legal. The goal of preventing public nuisance was arbitrary, overbroad and grossly disproportionate in comparison to the impact on prostitutes. Prostitution was legal and public nuisance laws made it more dangerous.

The law was not struck down because it made prostitution more dangerous. The fact that prostitution was legal and the goal of the law was preventing public nuisance were key to the decision. The decision describes prostitution as a risky economic activity and street prostitutes as particularly marginalized.

The judge gave the government a year to replace the law so that it would not suddenly be decriminalized.

Key points concerning the old law.

The objective was preventing public nuisance
Prostitution is a legal activity
principles raised in this case — arbitrariness, overbreadth, and gross disproportionality
it an offence to keep or be in a bawdy‑house
prohibits living on the avails of prostitution
prohibits communicating in public for the purposes of prostitution
preventing them from implementing certain safety measures — such as hiring security guards or “screening” potential clients
[86] First, while some prostitutes may fit the description of persons who freely choose (or at one time chose) to engage in the risky economic activity of prostitution, many prostitutes have no meaningful choice but to do so. Ms. Bedford herself stated that she initially prostituted herself “to make enough money to at least feed myself” (cross-examination of Ms. Bedford, J.A.R., vol. 2, at p. 92). As the application judge found, street prostitutes, with some exceptions, are a particularly marginalized population (paras. 458 and 472). Whether because of financial desperation, drug addictions, mental illness, or compulsion from pimps, they often have little choice but to sell their bodies for money. Realistically, while they may retain some minimal power of choice — what the Attorney General of Canada called “constrained choice” (transcript, at p. 22) — these are not people who can be said to be truly “choosing” a risky line of business (see PHS, at paras. 97-101).
Concluding that each of the challenged provisions violates the Charter does not mean that Parliament is precluded from imposing limits on where and how prostitution may be conducted, as long as it does so in a way that does not infringe the constitutional rights of prostitutes. The regulation of prostitution is a complex and delicate matter. It will be for Parliament, should it choose to do so, to devise a new approach, reflecting different elements of the existing regime. Considering all the interests at stake, the declaration of invalidity should be suspended for one year.

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13389/index.do#:~:text=Held%3A%20The%20appeals%20should%20be,bawdy%2Dhouse%E2%80%9D%20in%20s.

[139] The courts below concluded that the living on the avails provision is overbroad insofar as it captures a number of non-exploitative relationships which are not connected to the law’s purpose. The courts below also concluded that the provision’s negative effect on the security and safety of prostitutes is grossly disproportionate to its objective of protecting prostitutes from harm.

[142] The question here is whether the law nevertheless goes too far and thus deprives the applicants of their security of the person in a manner unconnected to the law’s objective. The law punishes everyone who lives on the avails of prostitution without distinguishing between those who exploit prostitutes (for example, controlling and abusive pimps) and those who could increase the safety and security of prostitutes (for example, legitimate drivers, managers, or bodyguards). It also includes anyone involved in business with a prostitute, such as accountants or receptionists. In these ways, the law includes some conduct that bears no relation to its purpose of preventing the exploitation of prostitutes. The living on the avails provision is therefore overbroad.

[159] In sum, the Court of Appeal wrongly attributed errors in reasoning to the application judge and made a number of errors in considering gross disproportionality. I would restore the application judge’s conclusion that s. 213(1)(c) is grossly disproportionate. The provision’s negative impact on the safety and lives of street prostitutes is a grossly disproportionate response to the possibility of nuisance caused by street prostitution.

Mon, 2022-11-07 14:39

susan davis susan davis's picture

gross..... you total ignorance about how these laws play out on the ground is really horrible... do you really believe sex work is decriminalized now? or is it illegal as you have so vehemently stated in other threads.... time to be clear, is it or isn't it....

it's criminalized, the nordic does nothing to support on street workers and your so called arguements would be laughable if they weren't so harmful and widespread...

feelings...... just what we need in law and criminal justice practice

Mon, 2022-11-07 16:58

Pondering

The act of selling ones own sexual services is decriminalized as well as other forms of sex work. Prostitution is illegal through the criminalization of buyers.

The intend of the Nordic Model is to prevent people from choosing prostitution as a means of earning money for reasons itemized in C 36.

Several provinces have made strip clubs illegal based on the feelings of residents that it isn't the kind of business they want to have in their community or communities. Communities, provinces, and countries, regulate commerce and decide what industries can and can't operate and if they can where they can.

This part: stay away from chruches and schools should be repealed. If it hasn't already been I think it will be.

We have been covering the labour aspect in "sex as labour topic" so I won't revisit that here.

In summary Bedford struck down the original laws controlling prostitution because in comparison to the goal of preventing public nuisance, the law was arbitrary, overboard and grossly disproportionate in the impact it had on prostitutes.

That will not be the test in evaluating C 36 which spells out the purpose and goals of the Bill and addresses the faults of the original laws.

One more point. there is no "my body my choice" autonomy angle here. People can do as they please in terms of sexual activity. Commerce is regulated and only commerce is being impacted. We are free to have sex with as many people as we like.

Mon, 2022-11-07 18:02

#10

susan davis susan davis's picture

is it hasn't been already....? what part of all this are you missing...?

"we are free to have sex with as many people as we like..."..... just not for money....

Only Commerce is being impacted....? PEOPLE ARE BEING IMPACTED!!!!

not some abstract ideological statement.....

Mon, 2022-11-07 19:50

#11

Pondering

Yes, commerce laws affect people. It does not interfere with their bodily autonomy. "My body my choice" as relates to abortion is about control over your physical body.

A libertarian would argue for the right to exchange whatever services for whatever money. It isn't a leftist argument.

Tue, 2022-11-08 01:53

#12

susan davis susan davis's picture

you are so wrong.... how does it not equal my body my choice? how does it not affect people? can you even hear how ridiculous your arguments are?

Tue, 2022-11-08 18:17

#13

Pondering

Your body is not being prevented from having sex with men. Men are being prevented from offering you money in exchange.

My body, my choice is related to this:

Bodily integrity is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy, self-ownership, and self-determination of human beings over their own bodies. In the field of human rights, violation of the bodily integrity of another is regarded as an unethical infringement, intrusive, and possibly criminal.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

Charging money for services falls under commerical law regardless of whether the service is sexual, selling baked goods, or babysitting. To be prevented from selling baked goods does not interfere with the body of the baker. The baker can give away their baked goods. They just can't charge money.

The arguments for unregulated commerce leaves it to workers to defend themselves.

Tue, 2022-11-08 19:10

#14

susan davis susan davis's picture

men don't "offer" me money - i demand it.... i require compensation for my labor...it's called work... every heard of it?

Tue, 2022-11-08 19:40

#15

Pondering

Replace the word "offering" with "paying".

Wed, 2022-11-09 13:21

#16

Pondering

Bill C 36 Preamble

Whereas the Parliament of Canada has grave concerns about the exploitation that is inherent in prostitution and the risks of violence posed to those who engage in it;

Whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes the social harm caused by the objectification of the human body and the commodification of sexual activity;

Whereas it is important to protect human dignity and the equality of all Canadians by discouraging prostitution, which has a disproportionate impact on women and children;

Whereas it is important to denounce and prohibit the purchase of sexual services because it creates a demand for prostitution;

Whereas it is important to continue to denounce and prohibit the procurement of persons for the purpose of prostitution and the development of economic interests in the exploitation of the prostitution of others as well as the commercialization and institutionalization of prostitution;

Whereas the Parliament of Canada wishes to encourage those who engage in prostitution to report incidents of violence and to leave prostitution;

And whereas the Parliament of Canada is committed to protecting communities from the harms associated with prostitution;

Wed, 2022-11-09 23:42

#17

susan davis susan davis's picture

who cares what steven harper and his cronies think.... this is baseless bullshit which is why the law is causing harm... you really think a harper era preamble to such a harmful law is justification...? steven harper, your buddy, your hero....good lord

Thu, 2022-11-10 02:47

#18

Pondering

In this thread I am trying to stick to evaluating the strength of bill C 36 and why it might or might not be overturned.

The new law is dramatically different. Instead of preventing public nuisance, in my own words, the argument is:

Exploitation and the risk of violence are inherent to prostitution.
Prostitution has a disproportionate impact on women and children.
The objectification of the human body and the commodification of sexual activity cause social harm.
The law discourages prostitution to protect human dignity and the equality of all Canadians.

Rather than preventing public nuisance the law is written to prevent people from becoming involved with prostitution because it is inherently dangerous and harmful. Prostitution is made illegal. The law prevents the development of economic interests in the commercialization and institutionalization of prostitution.

Equality is a charter right. Prostitution is a gendered crime. Commodifying the bodies of mainly women in order to sell sexual services to mainly men undermines the equality of women.

Thu, 2022-11-10 11:32

#19

JKR

I keep getting flashbacks from 2014 of Stephen Harper defending Bill C 36.

Thu, 2022-11-10 12:00

#20

Pondering

Ad hominem — Thou shall not attack the person’s character, but the argument.

Indirect ad hominem attacks attach a viewpoint to an unpopular person or movement. If you share a viewpoint with that person you are condemned by association. I hope Harper doesn't like pizza.

Thu, 2022-11-10 12:07

#21

JKR

Thu, 2022-11-10 12:15

#22

JKR

Does Harper want to criminalize pizza work?

Thu, 2022-11-10 12:19

(Reply to #22) #23

Pondering

JKR wrote:

Does Harper want to criminalize pizza work?

No but he likes it so now anyone who also likes pizza is like Harper.

Thu, 2022-11-10 13:24

#24

epaulo13

Billionaires and the planet cannot coexist

A recent report by Oxfam finds that the C02 output of the average billionaire is one million times greater than 90 percent of the world’s population. Unsurprisingly, there is also a clear disproportionality of billionaires between the Global North and the Global South: 75 percent of the world’s billionaire population is located in just 15 countries, while 60 percent of the world’s ultrarich elite are in North America and Europe. Worse, the number of billionaires in these countries is growing every year while the planet barrels down a “highway to climate hell.”

In Canada, a country where food bank use has risen 35 percent since March 2019 and the deputy prime minister is posing Disney+ cancellations as a solution to the cost of living crisis, the number of billionaires is growing at a rate of 15 percent annually, faster than the global average. At the same time that the world’s most ecologically toxic class thrives in Canada, the federal government is spending five times more on a warship acquisition than it is on decarbonization initiatives.

There are currently 3,311 billionaires in the world, and the number is growing while the global poverty rate rises to more disastrous heights every year. During the COVID-19 pandemic, billionaires increased their wealth by almost 60 percent, the equivalent of a new billionaire every 30 hours. For every billionaire created during this period, however, roughly one million people sank into extreme poverty.

North America is home to the largest number of billionaires with a grand total of 1,035. Sixty of these are in Canada, making Canada the country with the twelfth-highest concentration of billionaires, beating out Brazil, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates. A May 2022 report from Oxfam Canada found that Canada’s 41 richest oligarchs own as much wealth as the poorest 40 percent of Canadians. These billionaires are the leading figures in Canada’s most lucrative media, technology, food, clothing, and pharmaceutical companies.

While catering to the life-destroying billionaire class, the Canadian government has made next to no progress in curbing C02 emissions even though Prime Minister Justin Trudeau continues to pitch Canada as a climate champion. Currently Canada has the second-highest per capita emission rate of all G20 countries, behind only Saudi Arabia, while since 1990 Canada has had the highest proportional increase in CO2 emissions relative to G7 countries.

At the recent COP27 summit, the idea of climate debt was forwarded by many Global South nations. Under the wording of “loss and damage” financing, Global South representatives proposed that the continents which bear the most responsibility for the global climate crisis, North America and Europe, help pay for damages resulting from the alteration of the climate. This model of climate cooperation was proposed in the 2000 Havana Programme of Action and elaborated on in the 2010 Cochabamba People’s Agreement, a document which called for “the decolonization of the atmosphere” and stated that “[d]eveloped countries, as the main cause of climate change, in assuming their historical responsibility, must recognize and honor their climate debt in all of its dimensions as the basis for a just, effective, and scientific solution to climate change.”

By and large, the political leaders of the world’s most ecologically destructive countries dismissed the demand. At COP27, US delegates were allegedly angered by Egypt’s request for climate reparations for the Global South, while UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak flatly said that reparations are “not on the table.” Former UK Cabinet minister Jacob Rees-Mogg then stated that “there is no need for reparations” because Britain’s “leadership of the industrial revolution brought prosperity to the world.”.....

Thu, 2022-11-10 14:16

(Reply to #24) #25

kropotkin1951

Pondering wrote:

Ad hominem — Thou shall not attack the person’s character, but the argument.

Indirect ad hominem attacks attach a viewpoint to an unpopular person or movement. If you share a viewpoint with that person you are condemned by association. I hope Harper doesn't like pizza.

If you support a specific piece of legislation put in place by a politician then indeed you share their viewpoint on that legislation. Indeed one could say both you and Harper like pizza and regressive laws in the field of criminal law. I would not think any less of you for sharing a taste for pizza although I don't eat it myself but your support of his laws is a political stance not a dietary issue.

Thu, 2022-11-10 18:29

(Reply to #25) #26

JKR

Pondering wrote:
JKR wrote:

Does Harper want to criminalize pizza work?

No but he likes it so now anyone who also likes pizza is like Harper.

Why do you think both you and Harper support Harper’s Bill 36? I don’t think it has anything to do with pizza. I think it has much more to do with a similar outlook on public policy. Why do you think you and Harper have similar political perspectives concerning this policy?

Thu, 2022-11-10 22:05

(Reply to #26) #27

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Pondering wrote:

Ad hominem — Thou shall not attack the person’s character, but the argument.

Indirect ad hominem attacks attach a viewpoint to an unpopular person or movement. If you share a viewpoint with that person you are condemned by association. I hope Harper doesn't like pizza.

If you support a specific piece of legislation put in place by a politician then indeed you share their viewpoint on that legislation. Indeed one could say both you and Harper like pizza and regressive laws in the field of criminal law. I would not think any less of you for sharing a taste for pizza although I don't eat it myself but your support of his laws is a political stance not a dietary issue.

Nevertheless you are attempting to tar me with Harper's reputation. I doubt he actually wrote the law or any part of the preamble. The government under which the law passed has no bearing on whether or not the law is a good one.

Have you kept track of who passed seatbelt laws to determine whether or not you can support them?

Fri, 2022-11-11 01:31

(Reply to #27) #28

Pondering

JKR wrote:
Pondering wrote:
JKR wrote:

Does Harper want to criminalize pizza work?

No but he likes it so now anyone who also likes pizza is like Harper.

Why do you think both you and Harper support Harper’s Bill 36? I don’t think it has anything to do with pizza. I think it has much more to do with a similar outlook on public policy. Why do you think you and Harper have similar political perspectives concerning this policy?

I think you're a jerk who thinks a discussion on prostitution is an opportunity to have some yuks while insulting me. We all have opinions.

Fri, 2022-11-11 15:55

#29

kropotkin1951

Nevertheless you are attempting to tar me with Harper's reputation. I doubt he actually wrote the law or any part of the preamble. The government under which the law passed has no bearing on whether or not the law is a good one.

You are arguing it is a good law and others are arguing it is a bad law and pointing out which government passed what they think is a bad law. If you think Harper passed a good laws then why is it wrong to say you support his polices on the issue. Your pretzel logic is amusing but hard to follow. If one did not keep track of which government passed which laws what would one have to base voting on.

Fri, 2022-11-11 16:58

#30

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:
You are arguing it is a good law and others are arguing it is a bad law and pointing out which government passed what they think is a bad law. If you think Harper passed a good laws then why is it wrong to say you support his polices on the issue. Your pretzel logic is amusing but hard to follow. If one did not keep track of which government passed which laws what would one have to base voting on.

Harper has nothing to do with examining why the Bedford decision over-turned the former laws concerning prostitution and how that might apply to Bill C 36. You (and JKR) are trying to tar both me and the Bill based on it passing under the Harper government rather than on the merits of the Bill.

You came in to be disruptive and to make the thread about me not to discuss the Bill.

That has been one of your favorites for years. Let's all talk about Pondering. You trash threads you don't like to prevent people from debating.

You amuse yourself at the expense of the board members and moderators whose time you have sucked up over the years.

Sat, 2022-11-12 00:41

#31

susan davis susan davis's picture

BOOOOOOO!!!!

Sat, 2022-11-12 14:23

#32

kropotkin1951

Here is a thoughtful look at the law from Pivot Legal in Vancouver (bolding added).

The new sex work legislation explained

On December 20, 2013 the Supreme Court of Canada held that the laws that criminalize aspects of adult prostitution were unconstitutional and gave the federal government one year to consider whether to design new laws that comply with the Charter of Rights of Freedoms.

Today Justice Minister Peter MacKay tabled the Conservative Government's long anticipated new prostitution legislation. The Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act criminalizing the purchase of sex, communicating for the purpose of selling sex, gaining material benefit from sex work, and advertising sexual services.

This cynical, dystopic model does not resolve the problems that were created by Canada’s existing prostitution laws, which the Court held to be unconstitutional in Bedford, and adds new ones such as the prohibition on buying sex and advertising sexual services. The Charter rights engaged by this proposed law include life, liberty, security of the person, freedom of expression and equality. Arguably all are breached.

This is not the “Nordic” approach, nor is it a Canadian variation on the “Nordic” approach. It is an unconstitutional variation of our broken laws that impose more danger, more criminalization, and fewer safe options, contrary to the requirement of the Supreme Court of Canada to address these dangerous and ineffective laws.

This made in Canada model will lead to a continued epidemic of violence against sex workers in Canada.

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.

Sat, 2022-11-12 15:12

#33

Pondering

Thank-you that is a useful reference I hadn't seen. Pivot Legal is a respected group and has been active on prostitution but I find the statement is based in emotional propaganda style arguments rather than legal ones.

They draw parallels between the ways in which the new law has similar impacts but they ignore the point that prostitution is now illegal even if the seller is not criminalized.

Bedford overthrew the existing law based on a comparision of the law's intent, to prevent public nuisance, to the impact on sellers performing a legal activity.

Lawyers proving that the outcome is the same in terms of impact on sellers won't automatically invalidate the law. Now the activity they are participating in is illegal. I don't think the government has an obligation to make breaking the law safer.

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/protect/p1.html

a) Objectives of the Legislation

Bill C-36 reflects a significant paradigm shift away from the treatment of prostitution as “nuisance”, as found by the Supreme Court of Canada in Bedford, toward treatment of prostitution as a form of sexual exploitation that disproportionately and negatively impacts on women and girls. Bill C-36 signals this transformational shift both through its statement of purpose, as reflected in its preamble, and its placement of most prostitution offences in Part VIII of the Criminal Code, Offences Against the Person.Footnote11

Bill C-36’s objectives are based on the following conclusions drawn from the research that informed its development:

The majority of those who sell their own sexual services are women and girls.Footnote12 Marginalized groups, such as Aboriginal women and girls, are disproportionately represented.Footnote13
Entry into prostitution and remaining in it are both influenced by a variety of socio-economic factors, such as poverty, youth, lack of education, child sexual abuse and other forms of child abuse, and drug addiction.Footnote14
Prostitution is an extremely dangerous activity that poses a risk of violence and psychological harm to those subjected to it,Footnote15 regardless of the venue or legal framework in which it takes place,Footnote16 both from purchasers of sexual services and from third parties.Footnote17
Prostitution reinforces gender inequalities in society at large by normalizing the treatment of primarily women’s bodies as commodities to be bought and sold. In this regard, prostitution harms everyone in society by sending the message that sexual acts can be bought by those with money and power. Prostitution allows men, who are primarily the purchasers of sexual services, paid access to female bodies, thereby demeaning and degrading the human dignity of all women and girls by entrenching a clearly gendered practice in Canadian society.Footnote18
Prostitution also negatively impacts the communities in which it takes place through a number of factors, including: related criminality, such as human trafficking and drug-related crime; exposure of children to the sale of sex as a commodity and the risk of being drawn into a life of exploitation; harassment of residents; noise; impeding traffic; unsanitary acts, including leaving behind dangerous refuse such as used condoms or drug paraphernalia; and, unwelcome solicitation of children by purchasers.Footnote19
The purchase of sexual services creates the demand for prostitution, which maintains and furthers pre-existing power imbalances, and ensures that vulnerable persons remain subjected to it.Footnote20
Third parties promote and capitalize on this demand by facilitating the prostitution of others for their own gain. Such persons may initially pose as benevolent helpers, providers of assistance and protection to those who “work” for them.Footnote21 But the development of economic interests in the prostitution of others creates an incentive for exploitative conduct in order to maximize profits. Commercial enterprises in which prostitution takes place also raise these concerns and create opportunities for human trafficking for sexual exploitation to flourish.Footnote22

Consequently, Bill C-36 recognizes that prostitution’s victims are manifold; individuals who sell their own sexual services are prostitution’s primary victims, but communities, in particular children who are exposed to prostitution, are also victims, as well as society itself. Bill C-36 also recognizes that those who create the demand for prostitution, i.e., purchasers of sexual services, and those who capitalize on that demand, i.e., third parties who economically benefit from the sale of those services, both cause and perpetuate prostitution’s harms.

I want to double-check the references. I consider the work of Melissa Farley to be unfortunately questionable but I don't remember why I came to these conclusions. Her bias is extreme. Her research isn't useless but it does have to be scrutinized for actual facts keeping in mind that her bias means facts could be missing and surveys are designed to lead to a specific conclusion. You have to know the questions asked who asked them, and who answered them and all the numbers to take anything from her work. I would discard all of her conclusions and analysis. Just looks for facts.

Sat, 2022-11-12 15:19

#34

kropotkin1951

Pivot Legal is a respected group and has been active on prostitution but I find the statement is based in emotional propaganda style arguments rather than legal ones.

Your dismissive attitude towards anything that is not your viewpoint makes discussing anything with you a pain in the ass. Go ahead ignore every argument and then pontificate some more.

Sat, 2022-11-12 15:41

(Reply to #34) #35

susan davis susan davis's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pivot Legal is a respected group and has been active on prostitution but I find the statement is based in emotional propaganda style arguments rather than legal ones.

Your dismissive attitude towards anything that is not your viewpoint makes discussing anything with you a pain in the ass. Go ahead ignore every argument and then pontificate some more.

and.... PIVOT's arguments are anything but "emotional" they are based in constitutional law and a profound understanding of the community they represent and challenges we face.....

unlike those who are "still thinking about how to frame the argument".... or basing their arguments on debunked "opinions" from anti sex work crusaders....

Let's be clear - Melissa Farely writings - because they are NOT research - do not qualify as "evidence" in Canadian Courts and with good reason. read the tri-council policy statement chapters 4 and 9.....

you could NOT present an argument to court that stated for example - all people who identify as Muslim are extremists and a danger to society - and back it up with an opinion paper which only engaged with overt zealots who happen to be Muslim....

Anti sex work zealots "feel" they have the moral high ground.... thankfully the Courts don't engage in propaganda and are forced to scrutinize every piece of evidence placed before them in detail for ethics and rigors before giving it any "weight" in a decision.

Melissa Farely "opinion" writing was given "no weight".... full stop.

Of course anti sex work crusaders still cling to her work as bible as it fits their narrative and the majority of politicians are too lazy to actually check and see if information is accurate.

Sat, 2022-11-12 16:19

#36

Pondering

As I said, I am not happy with Melissa Farley's research. Not sure why that set you off.

I was the opposite of dismissive of Pivot Legal. I specified they had expertise. Any reader can read what Pivot said and judge whether or not my opinion is accurate. The words " cynical, dystopic model" are not legal terms.

I did address the statement by Pivot Legal. Their argument was that the outcome of the new law was the same as the old law. I didn't need to go down the list of impacts because I accepted their premise that the outcome didn't change significantly from the perspective of sex workers. I have no evidence to the contrary so I'm not arguing those points.

Pivot Legal ignored the extremely important changes that prostitution became illegal and the goals of the law are completely different.

Kropotkin, I am completely free from giving a shit what you think or feel and it feels great. It doesn't matter what you say. We make our own reputations on this board.

Sat, 2022-11-12 19:26

#37

susan davis susan davis's picture

PIVOT did not "ignore" any aspect of the new law.... who cares if it is now "illegal".... it reproduces and in some cases exacerbates the harms caused by the old law....

you simply don't consider sex workers deserving of rights.... and as such do not agree with what PIVOT is saying..... PIVOT are in the DTES of Vancouver and see those harms every single day..... so saying they are "ignoring" something.... is wrong..... they see it all, live and up close... not from behind their computer sitting in an arm chair

Sat, 2022-11-12 20:42

#38

Pondering

Susan,

All I am discussing in this thread is whether or not C 36 will survive the challenge not whether or not it should survive the challenge.

Whether or not it will survive depends on the law. Whether or not it should depends on our point of view.

post 32 does not refer to the change in status from legal to illegal. In the Bedford decision the judge specified the importance of the fact that it was a legal activity being made more dangerous. Making it illegal changes the equation.

Bill C 36 defines prostitution as dangerous therefore illegal.

The previous law made a dangerous legal activity more dangerous. This law makes a dangerous activity illegal. If someone chooses to participate in an activity that has been made illegal because it is dangerous it is difficult to complain that it is more dangerous because you are breaking it. The law is telling women not to do it because it is dangerous. The purpose of the law is to prevent women from being endangered by ending demand.

That is totally different than preventing public nuisance.

I don't know whether or not the government will have to prove that it is inherently dangerous but it will be hard to prove otherwise.

If the courts accept that prostitution is inherently dangerous then the government's desire to prevent it from becoming an industry is totally valid.

Sat, 2022-11-12 20:43

#39

Pondering

Let's be clear - Melissa Farely writings - because they are NOT research - do not qualify as "evidence" in Canadian Courts and with good reason. read the tri-council policy statement chapters 4 and 9.....

Do you have a link to that?

Sat, 2022-11-12 20:57

#40

Pondering

I believe women deserve rights including sex workers as women. Sex worker is a collection of many different jobs some legal some not. Workers have rights and that includes sex workers as workers.

In Sex and labour I want to discuss the various forms of sex work because each situation deserves to be judged on its own merits but not here.

Sat, 2022-11-12 21:17

#41

Pondering

Went back to address specific points, even worse:

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.

It isn't aimed at protecting sex workers. It is aimed at preventing women from becoming sex workers because it is dangerous. Sellers are not criminalized so they need not fear police. Sellers are permitted to hire support staff including security if they choose to go ahead knowing how dangerous it is.

Advertising would be promoting a dangerous illegal activity and would establish it as an industry.

Sat, 2022-11-12 23:47

(Reply to #41) #42

JKR

Pondering wrote:
kropotkin1951 wrote:
Pondering wrote:

Ad hominem — Thou shall not attack the person’s character, but the argument.

Indirect ad hominem attacks attach a viewpoint to an unpopular person or movement. If you share a viewpoint with that person you are condemned by association. I hope Harper doesn't like pizza.

If you support a specific piece of legislation put in place by a politician then indeed you share their viewpoint on that legislation. Indeed one could say both you and Harper like pizza and regressive laws in the field of criminal law. I would not think any less of you for sharing a taste for pizza although I don't eat it myself but your support of his laws is a political stance not a dietary issue.

Nevertheless you are attempting to tar me with Harper's reputation. I doubt he actually wrote the law or any part of the preamble. The government under which the law passed has no bearing on whether or not the law is a good one.

Have you kept track of who passed seatbelt laws to determine whether or not you can support them?

Harper obviously was the most influential person in establishing this law. I think a valid question to ask is, “Why did Harper establish Bill C-36?

Sat, 2022-11-12 23:54

#43

Pondering

How would I know? Ask his wife.

Sun, 2022-11-13 02:51

(Reply to #43) #44

susan davis susan davis's picture

Pondering wrote:

Went back to address specific points, even worse:

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.

It isn't aimed at protecting sex workers. It is aimed at preventing women from becoming sex workers because it is dangerous. Sellers are not criminalized so they need not fear police. Sellers are permitted to hire support staff including security if they choose to go ahead knowing how dangerous it is.

Advertising would be promoting a dangerous illegal activity and would establish it as an industry.

so.... and at nauseum..... the laws make it dangerous... sellers are criminalized... your interpretation of how the law works is not a reflection of the practice on the ground....
i don't care what your interpretation of what the law is or says....

it is enforced and the majority of the impact of that enforcement is on sex workers.... the pre-amble...all the so called good intentions.... boils down to the same shit as before but under the guise of rescue....

so go ahead, pretend you have a better understanding of the law and it's effects or how it is applied.... that is where the issue lays, not with the lies contained within the preamble of the bill nor with your interpretation of Justice Himmel's Decision... which, we won..... we won the whole shooting match...and we will again....

there is no so called "evidence" - as established by the "no weight " for abolitionist "opinion writing" or evangelical moralizing for example - that sex work is inherently dangerous, this means the law is flawed in it's assumption and the negative impacts over broad and not justifiable under the fundamental principles of justice - which is the test - in the supreme court - not whether the law makes it criminal now....nor whether abolitionists feel the law is fair and nor evangelicals or other religious intervenors feel the law upholds some "moralistic" principle.....
The court is restricted from indulging in feelings and opinions.... except for interpretation of the laws as it relates to fundamental justice - like the right to life, like the right to work at a job you freely choose, like the right to bodily autonomy....

for the record.... i will use as many "quotes" as I like, it's how i write

not that I expect you to read or understand my post...

https://ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique_tcps2-eptc2_2018.html

under chapter 4 - meaningful and appropriate inclusion are highlighted - which means - interviewing for example - only people who experienced exploitation in sex work and no choosing sex workers - is skewed and bias therefore does not qualify as ethical. and "benefits" to the community being studied... tell me.... where do the majority of sex workers - working class choosing sex workers - benefit from any abolitionist opinion writing? again not ethical

Sun, 2022-11-13 03:26

#45

Pondering

I don't have a problem with you using quotes. I like them.

Sun, 2022-11-13 13:22

#46

susan davis susan davis's picture

thank you for answering..... none of my points

Sun, 2022-11-13 13:40

(Reply to #46) #47

kropotkin1951

susan davis wrote:

thank you for answering..... none of my points

Well said.

Sun, 2022-11-13 17:37

#48

Pondering

https://ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique_tcps2-eptc2_2018.html

under chapter 4 - meaningful and appropriate inclusion are highlighted - which means - interviewing for example - only people who experienced exploitation in sex work and no choosing sex workers - is skewed and bias therefore does not qualify as ethical. and "benefits" to the community being studied... tell me.... where do the majority of sex workers - working class choosing sex workers - benefit from any abolitionist opinion writing? again not ethical

That isn't what it says. It states that people shouldn't be excluded not that only certain people should be included.

I'm not here to defend philosophical abolitionism. I'm just exploring how I think the courts will approach the new challenge. I haven't claimed any expertise.

I haven't had a chance to read whatever research the government is using to substanciate its claim that it is inherently dangerous.

The only issue I am looking at is whether or not the law will hold based on law not whether or not it should hold based on what abolitionists or sex worker advocates want.

chaper 9 is about indigenous people.

Mon, 2022-11-14 18:35

#49

kropotkin1951

It imposes a duty on researchers not to exclude individuals or groups from participation for reasons that are unrelated to the research.

In a study on street prostitution it would seem to me this guideline means that men who are prostitutes should not be excluded and that no exclusions should be made for gender identity. What it also says is that people who are not street prostitutes can be excluded and obviously should be since they have nothing to offer during a study. It would be like asking me about working as a nurse. I know it is extremely stressful and have seen how dangerous the work is but frankly my opinion would be meaningless given I have never worked a day in a hospital let alone as a nurse.

Mon, 2022-11-14 22:23

(Reply to #49) #50

JKR

Pondering wrote:

How would I know? Ask his wife.

You don’t think why a prime minister or their government established Bill 36 is pertinent to understanding Bill 36? The anti-Feminist pro evangelical Christian patriarchal Harper government supported Bill C 36 because it is an anti-Feminist pro evangelical Christian patriarchal law.

Tue, 2022-11-15 10:32

#51

susan davis susan davis's picture

it's known as appropriate inclusion and inappropriate exclusion - and yes - male and gender diverse sex workers would be included in a study of sex work where ever the location in the industry.

Pondering, I don't need you to explain to me the fundamental principles of ethical research involving human beings. I know what chapter 4 means and it is what i described.

thanks for taking no time to understand why the policy exists and why it is important in particular when considering information about sex workers lives. You are just trying to justify your ignoring of these inappropriate exclusions in favor of your stated position that all sex work is violence or is bad.

the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act

Pages