Prostitution Law in Canada: Will the Charter Dialogue Continue? - See more at: http://www.lawnow.org/prostitution-law-canada-will-charter-dialogue-continue/#sthash.YqDNQDgQ.dpuf
Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) + Parliament = dialogue.
Parliament passes a law, challenged as contrary to Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter). SCC delays effect of declaration to give Parliament to revise law. SCC may send Parliament back to rework law. This is dialogue theory.
Dec 2013 - Canada v. Bedford - keeping a bawdy house (section 210), living off the avails of prostitution (section 212(1)(j)), and communicating in public with respect to a proposed act of prostitution (section 213(1(c)) were unconstitutional.
Online consultation - http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cons/curr-cours/proscons-conspros/
Questions:
1. Do you think that purchasing sexual services from an adult should be a criminal offence? Should there be any exceptions? Please explain.
2. Do you think that selling sexual services by an adult should be a criminal offence? Should there be any exceptions? Please explain.
3. If you support allowing the sale or purchase of sexual services, what limitations should there be, if any, on where or how this can be conducted? Please explain.
4. Do you think that it should be a criminal offence for a person to benefit economically from the prostitution of an adult? Should there be any exceptions? Please explain.
5. Are there any other comments you wish to offer to inform the Government's response to the Bedford decision?
6. Are you writing on behalf of an organization? If so, please identify the organization and your title or role:
Bill C-36:
- create an offence that prohibits purchasing sexual services or communicating in any place for that purpose;
- create an offence that prohibits receiving a material benefit that derived from the commission of an offence referred to in paragraph (a);
- create an offence that prohibits the advertisement of sexual services offered for sale and to authorize the courts to order the seizure of materials containing such advertisements and their removal from the Internet;
modernize the offence that prohibits the procurement of persons for the purpose of prostitution;
- create an offence that prohibits communicating — for the purpose of selling sexual services — in a public place, or in any place open to public view, that is or is next to a place where persons under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present;
ensure consistency between prostitution offences and the existing human trafficking offences; and
- specify that, for the purposes of certain offences, a weapon includes anything used, designed to be used or intended for use in binding or tying up a person against their will.
Concerns:
- sex workers forced to negotiate in hidden locations
- illegal to advertise sex services
- law must consider promoting dignity and equality and protecting children and communities.
Confused about changing prostitution laws in Canada? Bill C-36 primer
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/confused-about-changing-prostitution-laws-in-canada-bill-c-36-primer-1.1902440/comments-7.534468
New Zealand - legal and regulated under labour and public health laws (Decriminalization)
US - (Prohibition)
Nevada, US - regulated (Legalization)
Nordic Model - buying sex is illegal, selling is not (Abolition)
Old law - selling is legal, bawdy house, living off the avails, soliciting in public is not.
New law - selling is legal, buying is not. Illegal to communicate for the purposes of prostitution, illegal to advertise the sexual services of others.
Pros - sex workers will be allowed to rent apartments, screen clients, hire a receptionist / security guard, advertise own services
Cons - still pushes sex workers to the fringes
Quotes:
"These appeals and the cross-appeal are not about whether prostitution should be legal or not. They are about whether the laws Parliament has enacted on how prostitution may be carried out pass constitutional muster. I conclude that they do not." -- Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, writing the decision in the Bedford case.
"We believe prostitution is inherently dangerous and exploitative." -- Justice Minister Peter MacKay, testifying at a Commons committee.
"They are not harmful because they are illegal. They are illegal because they are harmful." -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper, speaking of activities in the sex trade.
Put out the red light: Are sex workers being heard in the legal dialogue over prostitution?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/books-and-media/book-reviews/put-out-the-red-light-are-sex-workers-being-heard-in-the-legal-dialogue-over-prostitution/article17502956/
Chanelle Grant - “What really protects sex workers is when sex workers get to have control over their workplace. If we want effective policy that protects the safety, dignity, and human rights of sex workers, then sex workers must be at the centre of all decision making and policies.”
- Online consultation - 500 words or less, any canadian Citizen can express feelings on SCC ruling.
- No indication of what kind of weight will be given.
- No indication that sex worker voices will be prioritized.
- “Everyone shouting and no one being heard”
- “endless conversations about how sex work makes you feel”
- “feelings are spoken as facts and etched into law”
Proposed prostitution laws aim to shut down conversation
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/proposed-prostitution-laws-aim-to-shut-down-conversation/article19059986/
- higher order = protecting women, children and communitites from being exploited and degraded
- more of a monologue than a dialogue
- new law contradicts overall concern of the safety of sex workers
- Toronto Now will not be able to post sex worker ads
- government views sex workers as victims
- ban on selling sex where people under 18 could reasonably be found pushes sex workers to fringes
-
Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) + Parliament = dialogue.
Parliament passes a law, challenged as contrary to Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter). SCC delays effect of declaration to give Parliament to revise law. SCC may send Parliament back to rework law. This is dialogue theory.
Dec 2013 - Canada v. Bedford - keeping a bawdy house (section 210), living off the avails of prostitution (section 212(1)(j)), and communicating in public with respect to a proposed act of prostitution (section 213(1(c)) were unconstitutional.
Online consultation - http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cons/curr-cours/proscons-conspros/
Questions:
1. Do you think that purchasing sexual services from an adult should be a criminal offence? Should there be any exceptions? Please explain.
2. Do you think that selling sexual services by an adult should be a criminal offence? Should there be any exceptions? Please explain.
3. If you support allowing the sale or purchase of sexual services, what limitations should there be, if any, on where or how this can be conducted? Please explain.
4. Do you think that it should be a criminal offence for a person to benefit economically from the prostitution of an adult? Should there be any exceptions? Please explain.
5. Are there any other comments you wish to offer to inform the Government's response to the Bedford decision?
6. Are you writing on behalf of an organization? If so, please identify the organization and your title or role:
Bill C-36:
- create an offence that prohibits purchasing sexual services or communicating in any place for that purpose;
- create an offence that prohibits receiving a material benefit that derived from the commission of an offence referred to in paragraph (a);
- create an offence that prohibits the advertisement of sexual services offered for sale and to authorize the courts to order the seizure of materials containing such advertisements and their removal from the Internet;
modernize the offence that prohibits the procurement of persons for the purpose of prostitution;
- create an offence that prohibits communicating — for the purpose of selling sexual services — in a public place, or in any place open to public view, that is or is next to a place where persons under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present;
ensure consistency between prostitution offences and the existing human trafficking offences; and
- specify that, for the purposes of certain offences, a weapon includes anything used, designed to be used or intended for use in binding or tying up a person against their will.
Concerns:
- sex workers forced to negotiate in hidden locations
- illegal to advertise sex services
- law must consider promoting dignity and equality and protecting children and communities.
Confused about changing prostitution laws in Canada? Bill C-36 primer
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/confused-about-changing-prostitution-laws-in-canada-bill-c-36-primer-1.1902440/comments-7.534468
New Zealand - legal and regulated under labour and public health laws (Decriminalization)
US - (Prohibition)
Nevada, US - regulated (Legalization)
Nordic Model - buying sex is illegal, selling is not (Abolition)
Old law - selling is legal, bawdy house, living off the avails, soliciting in public is not.
New law - selling is legal, buying is not. Illegal to communicate for the purposes of prostitution, illegal to advertise the sexual services of others.
Pros - sex workers will be allowed to rent apartments, screen clients, hire a receptionist / security guard, advertise own services
Cons - still pushes sex workers to the fringes
Quotes:
"These appeals and the cross-appeal are not about whether prostitution should be legal or not. They are about whether the laws Parliament has enacted on how prostitution may be carried out pass constitutional muster. I conclude that they do not." -- Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, writing the decision in the Bedford case.
"We believe prostitution is inherently dangerous and exploitative." -- Justice Minister Peter MacKay, testifying at a Commons committee.
"They are not harmful because they are illegal. They are illegal because they are harmful." -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper, speaking of activities in the sex trade.
Put out the red light: Are sex workers being heard in the legal dialogue over prostitution?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/books-and-media/book-reviews/put-out-the-red-light-are-sex-workers-being-heard-in-the-legal-dialogue-over-prostitution/article17502956/
Chanelle Grant - “What really protects sex workers is when sex workers get to have control over their workplace. If we want effective policy that protects the safety, dignity, and human rights of sex workers, then sex workers must be at the centre of all decision making and policies.”
- Online consultation - 500 words or less, any canadian Citizen can express feelings on SCC ruling.
- No indication of what kind of weight will be given.
- No indication that sex worker voices will be prioritized.
- “Everyone shouting and no one being heard”
- “endless conversations about how sex work makes you feel”
- “feelings are spoken as facts and etched into law”
Proposed prostitution laws aim to shut down conversation
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/proposed-prostitution-laws-aim-to-shut-down-conversation/article19059986/
- higher order = protecting women, children and communitites from being exploited and degraded
- more of a monologue than a dialogue
- new law contradicts overall concern of the safety of sex workers
- Toronto Now will not be able to post sex worker ads
- government views sex workers as victims
- ban on selling sex where people under 18 could reasonably be found pushes sex workers to fringes
-
No comments:
Post a Comment