Most recent articles on prostitution related laws, opinions, comments

[DigitallyYours]

https://twitter.com/dreahouston/status/541657557774127104/photo/1

Premier Wynne Statement on Bill C-36

Yesterday, on December 6, after months of hearings and public debate, The Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act came into effect.

When the Supreme Court of Canada struck down three provisions of the Criminal Code, they found that each of the impugned laws placed sex workers unnecessarily at risk in a way that violated their rights to safety and security under the Charter.

As I have said before, my priority in this debate is to ensure that our laws and institutions enhance the safety of those who are vulnerable- in this case, sex workers: a class of (mostly) women, who are disproportionately the victims of sexual and physical violence. So I believe that there is merit in considering whether the Conservative government's new legislation meets that test.

I have listened to the debate that has taken place over the last year, and particularly since the introduction of Bill C-36. And I am left with grave concern that the so-called Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act will protect neither "exploited persons" nor "communities''.

I am not an expert, and I am not a lawyer, but as Premier of this province, I am concerned that this legislation (now the law of the land) will not make sex workers safer.

The legislation was duly passed through a democratic process. The Attorney General of Ontario is bound to enforce the Criminal Code. And she will.

But I have also asked the Attorney General to advise me on the constitutional validity of this legislation, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in the Bedford case, and our options as a government in the event that the legislation's constitutionality is in question.

We must enforce duly enacted legislation, but I believe that we must also take steps to satisfy ourselves that, in doing so, we are upholding the constitution and the Charter.

 

[MPAsquared]

Just read that screen grab in that tweet. I think Wynne is doing the right thing here. She's not coming right out saying "fuck harper". But she clearly realizes there is huge numbers of people and huge organizations shouting it's harms. So she clearly said they need to take the steps needed to check it's constitutionality.

I don't know much about the Attorney General. Can someone school me here??

I like that she wants to know what her governments options are. That is a great sign too!

I want Alan Young all over her/this!!! I'm hitting the phones right now!

I think she stayed as vanilla as possible to say she's going to see what can be done. Politically correct so to speak.

This is going to be an incredibly fascinating week in politics!!!

 

[canada-man]

 

[mitchell76]

Just read that screen grab in that tweet. I think Wynne is doing the right thing here. She's not coming right out saying "fuck harper". But she clearly realizes there is huge numbers of people and huge organizations shouting it's harms. So she clearly said they need to take the steps needed to check it's constitutionality.

I don't know much about the Attorney General. Can someone school me here??

I like that she wants to know what her governments options are. That is a great sign too!

I want Alan Young all over her/this!!! I'm hitting the phones right now!

I think she stayed as vanilla as possible to say she's going to see what can be done. Politically correct so to speak.

This is going to be an incredibly fascinating week in politics!!!

Emily, I believe this is Ontario's Attorney General?

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/ag/agbio.asp

 

[MPAsquared]

https://twitter.com/dreahouston/status/541657557774127104/photo/1

Premier Wynne Statement on Bill C-36

Yesterday, on December 6, after months of hearings and public debate, The Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act came into effect.

When the Supreme Court of Canada struck down three provisions of the Criminal Code, they found that each of the impugned laws placed sex workers unnecessarily at risk in a way that violated their rights to safety and security under the Charter.

As I have said before, my priority in this debate is to ensure that our laws and institutions enhance the safety of those who are vulnerable- in this case, sex workers: a class of (mostly) women, who are disproportionately the victims of sexual and physical violence. So I believe that there is merit in considering whether the Conservative government's new legislation meets that test.

I have listened to the debate that has taken place over the last year, and particularly since the introduction of Bill C-36. And I am left with grave concern that the so-called Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act will protect neither "exploited persons" nor "communities''.

I am not an expert, and I am not a lawyer, but as Premier of this province, I am concerned that this legislation (now the law of the land) will not make sex workers safer.

The legislation was duly passed through a democratic process. The Attorney General of Ontario is bound to enforce the Criminal Code. And she will.

But I have also asked the Attorney General to advise me on the constitutional validity of this legislation, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in the Bedford case, and our options as a government in the event that the legislation's constitutionality is in question.

We must enforce duly enacted legislation, but I believe that we must also take steps to satisfy ourselves that, in doing so, we are upholding the constitution and the Charter.

WOW!!!! Now that I see the whole statement, this is fantastic news!!!!!! Ok so she didn't send it right to court of appeal, but certainly the AG will say it's questionable (at the least) and then send it to court! This is amazing news!!!!

 

[MPAsquared]

Emily, I believe this is Ontario's Attorney General?

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/ag/agbio.asp

What is her politics? Where does she stand? I need to google!

 

[DigitallyYours]

What is her politics? Where does she stand? I need to google!

Keep in mind she is just one person. I am sure she will appoint someone in her department to write an opinion, and it will be researched by committee.

Anyway, here is an article where she talks about prostitution in her home of Vanier.
http://thefittingroomchronicles.wor...leaning-up-the-quartier-a-tale-of-two-cities/

 

[canada-man]

As Chief Law Officer of the Crown, you have a unique role in providing independent legal advice to Cabinet, with a special responsibility as the guardian of the rule of law. You are responsible for ensuring Cabinet is properly advised on the constitutionality and legal risks of all government initiatives. You and your ministry staff will also continue to provide legal advice to all ministries, and to review the conduct of litigation on behalf of the government.


http://www.ontario.ca/government/2014-mandate-letter-attorney-general

 

[DigitallyYours]

Citing the responsibilities of an AG is pointless. Peter M is the AG of Canada, and look how seriously he took his responsibilities. Hopefully, Meilleur is more sensible.

 

[Johnnylol2]

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/more-60-organizations-agencies-call-repeal-prostitution-law-150533003.html

just found this article.

 

[GPIDEAL]

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/ag/agbio.asp

The Honourable Madeleine Meilleur

Attorney General

Madeleine Meilleur represents the riding of Ottawa-Vanier. She was first elected to the Ontario legislature in 2003 after more than a decade in municipal politics.

Minister Meilleur was appointed Attorney General in March 2014, after having served as Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services since October 2011. She continues as Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs.

As Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Minister Meilleur formed Ontario’s first ever Civil Liberties Discussion Table, was active in supporting police, firefighters, corrections officers and other first responders, and successfully led the effort to make Ontario the first province in Canada to make sprinklers mandatory in retirement homes and vulnerable care occupancies.

Meilleur has previously served as Minister of Culture and Minister of Community and Social Services.

Thanks to her leadership, Ontario passed laws promoting the social inclusion of persons with developmental disabilities and giving Ontarians access to open adoption records. She also spearheaded efforts to introduce a new and strengthened Ontario Heritage Act, concluding 30 years of efforts to provide better heritage protection.

As Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs, she has been committed to building stronger French communities through critical investments in education and health services, including the expansion of the Montfort Hospital.

The independence of the French TV channel TFO, the creation of the office of the French-language services Commissioner, and the creation of Franco-Ontarian Day on September 25th are some of her many accomplishments that have benefited Franco-Ontarians.

Meilleur is a registered nurse and lawyer specializing in labour and employment law. She was appointed to the rank of Chevalier of the Ordre national de la Légion d’Honneur by the Ambassador of France to Canada in March 2012.

Read the Minister's mandate letter.

Smart and successful lady. She seems compassionate.

 

[GPIDEAL]

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/more-60-organizations-agencies-call-repeal-prostitution-law-150533003.html

just found this article.

The comments are great!

 

[wilbur]

Are you sure ? We don't know her personal opinion.

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/ag/agbio.asp

The Ontario Cabinet doesn't operate in a vacuum. Long before Wynne made her announcement, she probably spoke to Meilleur and at least indirectly made her opinions known. Wynne is till the boss, and has the power to appoint or dismiss Cabinet Ministers, and get rid of those who don't toe the Premier's line. I don't think that there would be such announcement and referal to the AG without some indication that the response would be positive.

Having the question refered to the AG and getting a negative answer as a result would be politically damaging.

Wynne is going through the motions, and pledging to uphold the rule of law.... only after the opinion is recieved.

 

[DigitallyYours]

The Ontario Cabinet doesn't operate in a vacuum. Long before Wynne made her announcement, she probably spoke to Meilleur and at least indirectly made her opinions known. Wynne is till the boss, and has the power to appoint or dismiss Cabinet Ministers, and get rid of those who don't toe the Premier's line. I don't think that there would be such announcement and referal to the AG without some indication that the response would be positive.

Having the question refered to the AG and getting a negative answer as a result would be politically damaging.

Wynne is going through the motions, and pledging to uphold the rule of law.... only after the opinion is recieved.

I agree. It's an AG's job to keep apprised of legal changes that affect the province. This new law has been controversial and highly publicized. It's not like Meilleur is just now finding out about c-36. She would have been following along and forming an opinion. Not just her but people in her office as well. And the cabinet would have had discussions about how they feel about it before wynne went public. That ivison said there was "disquiet" in the cabinet just confirms this. Everyone seems on the same page.

 

[squeezer]

If you refer to the online survey they carried out earlier this year, and used to "inform" C-36, it's quite simple: they rigged it so that it would give the results they wanted. Multiple surveys were allowed from the same IP address, so people were allowed to complete the survey multiple times rather than just once, as in any proper online survey.

Also a proper survey aims to sample a fairly representative cross-section of the population. It wasn't the case with the online survey: the people who completed the survey, had self-selected themselves; meaning that the people who answered the survey were particularly interested by the question tended to participate, more than the general population.

And they were campaigns as well: if you dig up some of my old posts from March, you will see that the Church groups and the rescue organizations had campaigns to encourage their members to participate.

Also Johns were intentionally thrown in with Pimps.

 

[DigitallyYours]

And they were campaigns as well: if you dig up some of my old posts from March, you will see that the Church groups and the rescue organizations had campaigns to encourage their members to participate.

Yeah. And those postcards that Joy Smith says she received from Canadians around the country was also BS and the result of campaigns. They basically sent out postcards to people and told them to just drop them into a mailbox. It's not like these people went out on their own and put in an effort to buy a postcard.

 

[canada-man]

http://blog.terrijeanbedford.com/20...as-grave-concern-about-new-prostitution-laws/

Kathleen Wynne has ‘grave concern’ about new prostitution laws
Posted on 2014/12/07

Today, Kathleen Wynne addressed the so-called “Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act” formerly known as Bill C-36. She claimed that she has “grave concerns” over the constitutionality of this act, and has asked the Attorney General of Ontario, Ms. Madeleine Meilleur, for an opinion on the constitutionality of the Conservative Government’s new law.

Sex workers have consistently maintained that this law puts us in great danger, and I applaud Kathleen Wynne for showing respect for the consitution, something Stephen Harper has consistently refused to do. I am confident that the Attorney General will recommend referring it to the Ontario Court of Appeal immediately.

In doing so, Kathleen Wynne can spare sex workers of this country the burden of time-consuming and costly legislation, and more importantly, will prevent sex workers from being targeted for violence and abuse while a constitutional challenge works its way through the courts. I am certain that the Supreme Court will see this “law” for what it truly is – an unconstitutional, partisan piece of nonsense that should never have been tabled in the first place.

 

[shakenbake]

For instance, an ongoing example.

rabble.ca current has an online poll about C-36:

What do you think of the new prostitution law Bill C-36?

http://rabble.ca/polls/what-do-you-...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Last time I checked on Saturday night, the split was about 70% for "It still harms sex workers. We need full decriminalization of sex work to make working conditions safer for all.", and the remainder of the votes between the other options, with "It is a step forward. Criminalizing johns and pimps will contribute to gender equality."

24 hours later, the rescue organizations have started a campaign on Twitter to tip the balance the other way. For instance:

https://twitter.com/Sextrade101/status/541765523277877248


And look at the results now:

52% in favour of "It still harms sex workers. We need full decriminalization of sex work to make working conditions safer for all.", while 42% are in favour of "It is a step forward. Criminalizing johns and pimps will contribute to gender equality.". And it's the same set up; multiple votes allowed from the same IP.

Coincidence? I think not.

57 % at this moment in time. You can't vote twice in the Rabble poll, I found.

 

[shakenbake]

Stop criminalizing sex work

By: Kyle Kirkup

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/stop-criminalizing-sex-work-285052441.html

One year after the Supreme Court struck down Canada's former prostitution laws, the federal government's infamous response came into force this past weekend. Across Canada, sex workers and their allies are already mourning the passage of the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act. They know it will make their working conditions even more dangerous than they already are. They know it will contribute to violence and even death.

The Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act is premised on a simple idea: If we create enough criminal punishment, we'll eventually get clients to "just say no" to the purchase of sexual services. If we build enough prisons, the story goes, we'll eventually end the demand for sex work altogether. In the process, we'll usher in a new world of gender equality. With the passage of this new legislation, the Conservative government's law-and-order agenda has been reimagined as one that promotes human rights and dignity.

The legislation casts a wide and dangerous net. It targets, among other things, the purchase of sexual services, communicating for the purposes of solicitation near schools, playgrounds and daycares, third parties who receive a material benefit from another person's sex work and advertising.

The legislation also includes $20 million, which was supposed to be used to support individuals in the sex trade. Half is set to go to law enforcement officials. According to the Department of Justice, the other half will be doled out to organizations that "provide or enhance services to support exit strategies for those involved in prostitution." While funding applications aren't due until January 2015, the likely recipients will be organizations that testified in support of the legislation before the House of Commons and Senate committees.

The money would have been better spent launching a national daycare strategy, more affordable housing or increased social assistance.

It didn't have to be this way. When the Supreme Court struck down the former laws last December, it gave the government one year to determine whether it wanted to enact new, constitutionally compliant legislation. Had the government decided to get out the business of criminalizing sex work, the sky wouldn't have fallen. There still would have been a wide array of criminal provisions that could have been used to respond to the important concerns raised by sex workers about violence and exploitation. These include human trafficking, kidnapping, forcible confinement, uttering threats, extortion, assault, sexual assault, aggravated assault, aggravated sexual assault and a series of gang-related offences.

Had the government decided to get out of the business of criminalizing sex work, however, Canada could have ushered in a new era of human rights and labour protections for sex workers. Canada could have followed New Zealand's lead. Since 2003, New Zealand has decriminalized sex work and developed a new model that prioritizes human rights. The results have been promising. In March 2014, a New Zealand human rights tribunal awarded a sex worker $25,000 in damages for sexual harassment by her employer. In the decision, the tribunal noted that "sex workers are as much entitled to protection from sexual harassment as those working in other occupations. The fact that a person is a sex worker is not a licence for sexual harassment, especially by the manager or employer at the brothel." This is a world first -- a human rights complaint would never have been possible in a criminalized environment.

As they continue to work in the shadows of Canadian criminal law, with no human rights and labour protections in sight, sex workers will continue to experience violence and even death. With nervous clients trying to avoid police detection, street-based sex workers will have little time to screen clients before moving to isolated locations. Indoor sex workers will encounter clients refusing to provide basic personal information, such as their name, out of fear of prosecution. Unable to communicate near schools, playgrounds and daycares, sex workers will face the constant risk of police harassment and arrest. With significant limitations placed on advertising sexual services, sex workers will find it difficult to work in safer, indoor locations. The demand for sex work won't end. But working conditions will become even more dangerous than they already are. And the federal government could have done better.

Kyle Kirkup is a 2013 Trudeau Scholar at the University of Toronto faculty of law.

Twitter: @kylekirkup

Talk about conflict of interest!

 

[MPAsquared]

57 % at this moment in time. You can't vote twice in the Rabble poll, I found.

Yes you can. Wait a few hrs.