{~_~}Раиса
2014-06-08 00:40:08 UTC
Once again, it well may fall to the individual provinces to bring in
legislation on bawdy houses and their licensing and any advertising for
them.
Looks like Harper & Co have decided to shirk the responsibility by
bringing in 'what you don't do' legislation, instead of 'these are the
limits for any soliciting or advertising'.
I don't disagree that ads advertising sex for sale in places like phone
books, whitepages online, or billboards on major streets, is crap that
should be banned.
And I think that if someone wants to find the local bawdy house in the
town where he lives, he's not going to have a problem finding it. If a
travelling CEO or truck driver is new to a city or town and doesn't know
where to find the local henhouse, I'm sure a doorman or bartender would
be able to give him directions.
It's a start in the right direction. Now the provinces will have to
step up and fill in the details. As usual.
___________________________________________________________________
June 6, 2014 - the globe and mail
Proposed prostitution laws aim to shut down conversation
Ottawa's new rules meet some of the Supreme Court's concerns with those
they struck down, but still leaves sex workers open to harm
The law on prostitution has become the latest battleground between the
Conservative government and the Supreme Court.
In a year when the government has suffered overwhelming losses at the
country's top court, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper has publicly
taken to task Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, Ottawa
raised the stakes by introducing a tougher law on prostitution than the
ones struck down last year.
The court was unanimous: laws that banned street soliciting and bawdy
houses put sex workers at risk of grave harm and were out of proportion
to the aim of protecting neighbourhoods from a nuisance, and therefore
unconstitutional. But the court did not tell the government how to
reform its approach; nothing was directly ruled out.
"So the government took that bet, that challenge," University of Ottawa
law professor Carissima Mathen said, and set out to ban the
commodification of sex itself, while also stating a higher-order
purpose: protecting women, children and communities from being exploited
and degraded.
Chief Justice McLachlin has spoken often of the "dialogue" between the
court and Parliament. When a court strikes down a law, it is not the
last word; Parliament drafts a new one. But that notion of dialogue took
a new turn this week.
"I see this as more of a monologue than a dialogue," University of
British Columbia law professor Joel Bakan said. The proposed new law,
which still must be debated and voted on before it takes effect,
"putatively meets some of the Supreme Court's specific concerns, while
at the same time it contradicts their overall concern" about the safety
of sex workers, he said.
In the old prostitution laws (those rejected by the Supreme Court),
soliciting sex as a buyer or seller on the street was banned, in keeping
with the anti-nuisance purpose. In the new laws, advertising sexual
services is banned, in keeping with the aim of preventing degradation.
The Supreme Court ruled in a 1990 case that, even though the sale of sex
was legal, the right to communicate about it had less value under the
Constitution than other forms of expression, said Richard Moon, who
teaches law at the University of Windsor. But after last year's ruling,
the value of the right to advertise "may be greater because it is not
just about the sale of sexual services – it is also about enabling sex
workers to operate in a safer way," leaving the new law open to a
challenge on that ground.
A sex worker would not be prosecuted under the new law if she advertises
herself. But those who post a prostitute's ads on websites or in
newspapers such as Toronto's Now (which has 11 pages of sex-related ads
in its latest issue) could be charged, and face fines or jail sentences.
And because potential clients might never find a lone blogger's website,
sex workers would have to advertise on better-known sites, which would
be illegal if the law passes.
The Canadian government said it is setting aside $20-million for support
services to help prostitutes get out of sex work. Justice Minister Peter
MacKay said that, in the government's view, prostitutes are victims, and
the new law would protect them.
But advocates for sex workers say the advertising ban would drive sex
workers from the relative safety of their homes or places where they can
gather in groups – and where clients can be screened – to the streets.
And a ban on selling sex where people under 18 could reasonably be found
would drive sex workers further away, to dark, industrial zones.
The new law "is a gift to predators," said Jean McDonald, executive
director of Maggie's Toronto Sex Workers Action Project.
legislation on bawdy houses and their licensing and any advertising for
them.
Looks like Harper & Co have decided to shirk the responsibility by
bringing in 'what you don't do' legislation, instead of 'these are the
limits for any soliciting or advertising'.
I don't disagree that ads advertising sex for sale in places like phone
books, whitepages online, or billboards on major streets, is crap that
should be banned.
And I think that if someone wants to find the local bawdy house in the
town where he lives, he's not going to have a problem finding it. If a
travelling CEO or truck driver is new to a city or town and doesn't know
where to find the local henhouse, I'm sure a doorman or bartender would
be able to give him directions.
It's a start in the right direction. Now the provinces will have to
step up and fill in the details. As usual.
___________________________________________________________________
June 6, 2014 - the globe and mail
Proposed prostitution laws aim to shut down conversation
Ottawa's new rules meet some of the Supreme Court's concerns with those
they struck down, but still leaves sex workers open to harm
The law on prostitution has become the latest battleground between the
Conservative government and the Supreme Court.
In a year when the government has suffered overwhelming losses at the
country's top court, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper has publicly
taken to task Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, Ottawa
raised the stakes by introducing a tougher law on prostitution than the
ones struck down last year.
The court was unanimous: laws that banned street soliciting and bawdy
houses put sex workers at risk of grave harm and were out of proportion
to the aim of protecting neighbourhoods from a nuisance, and therefore
unconstitutional. But the court did not tell the government how to
reform its approach; nothing was directly ruled out.
"So the government took that bet, that challenge," University of Ottawa
law professor Carissima Mathen said, and set out to ban the
commodification of sex itself, while also stating a higher-order
purpose: protecting women, children and communities from being exploited
and degraded.
Chief Justice McLachlin has spoken often of the "dialogue" between the
court and Parliament. When a court strikes down a law, it is not the
last word; Parliament drafts a new one. But that notion of dialogue took
a new turn this week.
"I see this as more of a monologue than a dialogue," University of
British Columbia law professor Joel Bakan said. The proposed new law,
which still must be debated and voted on before it takes effect,
"putatively meets some of the Supreme Court's specific concerns, while
at the same time it contradicts their overall concern" about the safety
of sex workers, he said.
In the old prostitution laws (those rejected by the Supreme Court),
soliciting sex as a buyer or seller on the street was banned, in keeping
with the anti-nuisance purpose. In the new laws, advertising sexual
services is banned, in keeping with the aim of preventing degradation.
The Supreme Court ruled in a 1990 case that, even though the sale of sex
was legal, the right to communicate about it had less value under the
Constitution than other forms of expression, said Richard Moon, who
teaches law at the University of Windsor. But after last year's ruling,
the value of the right to advertise "may be greater because it is not
just about the sale of sexual services – it is also about enabling sex
workers to operate in a safer way," leaving the new law open to a
challenge on that ground.
A sex worker would not be prosecuted under the new law if she advertises
herself. But those who post a prostitute's ads on websites or in
newspapers such as Toronto's Now (which has 11 pages of sex-related ads
in its latest issue) could be charged, and face fines or jail sentences.
And because potential clients might never find a lone blogger's website,
sex workers would have to advertise on better-known sites, which would
be illegal if the law passes.
The Canadian government said it is setting aside $20-million for support
services to help prostitutes get out of sex work. Justice Minister Peter
MacKay said that, in the government's view, prostitutes are victims, and
the new law would protect them.
But advocates for sex workers say the advertising ban would drive sex
workers from the relative safety of their homes or places where they can
gather in groups – and where clients can be screened – to the streets.
And a ban on selling sex where people under 18 could reasonably be found
would drive sex workers further away, to dark, industrial zones.
The new law "is a gift to predators," said Jean McDonald, executive
director of Maggie's Toronto Sex Workers Action Project.