Prostitution Proposal

[cybercoma]

jacee, are you American? We have no such "branches of government" in Canada.

The NDP is wrong to argue that Harper should refer this legislation to the Supreme Court before passage. The Supreme Court is not a legislative body. Indeed, I would argue that its main task is to ensure the division of powers and the correct balance between sovereign provinces and the central government.

It's responsibility is to also uphold the Charter. Since the original law failed a Charter challenge, you would think they would want to be sure that the new one wouldn't. And since they've essentially changed nothing...

Edited June 10, 2014 by cybercoma

[dre]

jacee, are you American? We have no such "branches of government" in Canada.

The NDP is wrong to argue that Harper should refer this legislation to the Supreme Court before passage. The Supreme Court is not a legislative body. Indeed, I would argue that its main task is to ensure the division of powers and the correct balance between sovereign provinces and the central government.

Have you ever been to Canada?

Yes... the judiciary absolutely IS a branch of the Canadian government.

Judicial branch

This branch interprets and applies the law. It includes judges and the courts and operates independently from the other branches of government.

http://www.canada.ca/en/gov/system/judicial.html

Indeed, I would argue that its main task is to ensure the division of powers and the correct balance between sovereign provinces and the central government.

You might argue that yeah... But youd be wrong again. The judicial branches role in Canada is to apply and interpret the law.

[cybercoma]

Have you ever been to Canada?

He hasn't. He's from Québec.

[Bonam]

He hasn't. He's from Québec.

Burn... now things get serious!

[jacee]

oh, right. You're anti-Harper. Which means that even when this government proposes legislation to protect vulnerable women, you oppose Harper.

Ask the "vulnerable women". This is NOT the legislation they want or need to protect themselves while earning a living.

Most of the sex workers' rights groups in Canada reject the model as "harmful and inconsistent with sex workers constitutional rights to health and safety," as the Canadian Alliance for Sex Work Law Reform (CASWLR) puts it.

The group argues that targeting clients makes street prostitutes "more likely to take risks with new or unknown clients," and "displaces sex workers into darker and less populated areas where they are more vulnerable to violence" and less likely "to take sufficient time to screen potential clients."

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/#!/content/1.2665431

No ... Harper's legislation is just pure politics on the taxpayers' dime, designed to appeal to his ill-tempered base by promising to punish someone, when Harper knows it will be struck down by the Supreme Court for the reasons cited above ... and his base likes to be mad at the Supreme Court anyway, so it's a win-win for him.

[jacee]

jacee, are you American? We have no such "branches of government" in Canada.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/newcomers/before-federal-gov.asp

The federal government has three branches: executive, legislative and judicial.

Normally the PM has legislation vetted by Constitutional lawyers. Harper doesn't.

He prefers to waste our money creating stupid laws for the Supreme Court to strike down. It gains him political points with his base.

.

[guyser]

The US Constitution has "branches of government" (following Montesquieu) but the BNA Act was written in a different time, in different circumstances.

For Canadians, the Governor in Council is a more important "branch".

What do they teach in Quebec? Falsehoods?

August, seriously ...this is grade nine civics stuff.

[GostHacked]

Exactly...enough with policy influenced by 'morality'.

The authorities have been battling prostitution for well over century. No matter what they do, it is still around.

Give them a place to operate safely out of. Making everything illegal about prostitution, except the act itself is not solving anything.

[Big Guy]

To try to regulate prostitution is an attempt to regulate a business according to some peoples moral standards. It is yet another example of a few trying to regulate the behaviour of others based on their own beliefs.

Make the business legal, restrict it to certain areas, impose some health controls and tax this business. Those wishing not to interact with this business are free to do so as are those who choose to take advantage of it.

I believe that the satisfaction of an active libido with the assistance of a consenting adult is just as immoral as having a chiropractor, masseuse or physiotherapist actively relieving a sore back – but probably a lot more satisfying.

[Gumby]

The last remaining proponents of the erroneously named "Nordic Model" seem to be the original proponents of it. The sex trade workers in Sweden seem to be strongly against it. Some Swedish MP's are now calling for legalization, claiming that the "Swedish Model" has failed. Interestingly enough, there was initially significant opposition to the law, a lot of it coming from NGO's and academics.

There are enough diametrically opposed "results" of the law's passage claimed by researchers that only one scenario is probable, out of a few possibles, and that is that someone is lying or has a hidden agenda causing them to distort the facts, knowingly or otherwise. My instinct is to listen to the sex workers, and the Swedish women are saying they are in far greater danger than ever because of the riskier playing field of illegality.

Why is it that we insist on adopting models that are at the very least questionable, and in this case useless as per the ones it is directed to serve?

[scribblet]

I'll repeat this from a previous post

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/human-trafficking-persists-despite-legality-of-prostitution-in-germany-a-902533.html

When Germany legalized prostitution just over a decade ago, politicians hoped that it would create better conditions and more autonomy for sex workers. It hasn't worked out that way, though. Exploitation and human trafficking remain significant problems. By SPIEGEL Staff

and this one - Swedes say they got it right

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/dec/11/prostitution-sweden-model-reform-men-pay-sex

[jacee]

From Maclean's link above, here's Mackay's weasel answer:

Q The court said they have to be able [to communicate with johns] in order to figure out the dangers. I dont see anything in this bill that would suggest there will be free communication between prostitutes and potential customers.

A Right. And the police will be looking out for those who are attempting to purchase the sex.

So ... we know the Supreme Court will strike this law down and it's a huge waste of our money

[Gumby]

In reference to the Guardian article linked by scribblet, I would point out that the sex worker's opinion in that article is that the law has increased danger while removing prostitutes from the police radar. How is this a positive development? The Swedes are NOT saying the law is a success, at least not the ones who matter the most.

My biggest question remains.... Knowing that prohibition of guns, alcohol, and drugs have NEVER worked in North America to reduce users, what magical change do proponents of this law expect will happen with regards to prostitution? The track record of prohibition speaks for itself, and any S.O.B. that would beat, drug, pimp, or kill a young woman is not worried about whether it's prohibited or not. Get real.

[ReeferMadness]

So ... you're saying that Harper is playing politics with taxpayer money.

I agree.

.

I object to that phrase - taxpayer's money. It implies that Canada is like a corporation and the more you pay, the more say you have. Of course, it is a lot like that but it shouldn't be. It's anti-democratic.

It's citizens money, not taxpayer's money. And yes, as always, Harper is playing games.

[ReeferMadness]

I strongly recommend that you guys (including Andrew Coyne who probably stops by this forum every so often) read about the experience of Sweden. The Swedish law has been in place for about 15 years and it is very popular. And it works.

I think one of the key features is how the Swedish law (and Mackay's proposed legislation) changes the negotiating position. In addition, the Swedish law has had an effect on other illegal activities.

I suppose that depends on your definition of "works"

The Nordic model of prostitution increases the risk of violence and the transmission of sexually transmitted disease, a study has found.

According to an article published in the British Medical Journal

I guess if you think that prostitutes should be subject to increased risk of violence and STD's, it works great.

[jacee]

I object to that phrase - taxpayer's money. It implies that Canada is like a corporation and the more you pay, the more say you have. Of course, it is a lot like that but it shouldn't be. It's anti-democratic.

It's citizens money, not taxpayer's money.

You must be under the mistaken impression that some citizens don't pay taxes!

All citizens are taxpayers, from birth to death, on pretty much everything we buy, earn, use, consume.

If you breathe, you pay taxes.

Nobody gets it all back.

I would never imply that some (taxpaying) citizens are more 'worthy'.

If you're a citizen, you're a taxpayer.

And I agree that a citizen is a citizen, regardless of how much tax they pay.

And yes, as always, Harper is playing games.

Yes he is ... playing hardline politics with our money and putting vulnerable women and boys and girls at even more risk for their health and safety ... to pander to social conservatives.

.

Edited July 6, 2014 by jacee

[Argus]

You must be under the mistaken impression that some citizens don't pay taxes!

Yes, about a third of them. What little they do actually pay winds up being refunded.

[jacee]

Yes, about a third of them. What little they do actually pay winds up being refunded.

You're talking only about income tax.

Nobody gets back all the taxes they pay.

.

[ReeferMadness]

You must be under the mistaken impression that some citizens don't pay taxes!

All citizens are taxpayers, from birth to death, on pretty much everything we buy, earn, use, consume.

If you breathe, you pay taxes.

Nobody gets it all back.

I would never imply that some (taxpaying) citizens are more 'worthy'.

If you're a citizen, you're a taxpayer.

And I agree that a citizen is a citizen, regardless of how much tax they pay.

The point is that my interest in democracy and governance doesn't stem from my role as a taxpayer, it stems from my role as a citizen. The greatest achievement of groups like the Fraser Institute and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation is the phrase 'Taxpayer's money'. It implies that government is just another service to be bought.

[jacee]

The point is that my interest in democracy and governance doesn't stem from my role as a taxpayer, it stems from my role as a citizen. The greatest achievement of groups like the Fraser Institute and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation is the phrase 'Taxpayer's money'. It implies that government is just another service to be bought.

And that's worth discussing ... in an appropriate thread.

.

[jacee]

In reference to the Guardian article linked by scribblet, I would point out that the sex worker's opinion in that article is that the law has increased danger while removing prostitutes from the police radar. How is this a positive development? The Swedes are NOT saying the law is a success, at least not the ones who matter the most.

My biggest question remains.... Knowing that prohibition of guns, alcohol, and drugs have NEVER worked in North America to reduce users, what magical change do proponents of this law expect will happen with regards to prostitution? The track record of prohibition speaks for itself, and any S.O.B. that would beat, drug, pimp, or kill a young woman is not worried about whether it's prohibited or not. Get real.

All good reasons why this legislation sucks!

.

[Argus]

You're talking only about income tax.

Nobody gets back all the taxes they pay.

.

What taxes do poor people pay? They get an HST refund too.

And while about 30% pay no income taxes, if you measure how many pay far less to the government than they get back in services, the numbers is much bigger. From a profit/loss perspective, the majority of Canadians are net losses insofar as the national budget goes.

[ReeferMadness]

Time to update this thread.

It appears that there has been insufficient public resistance to this ridiculous piece of legislation so it seems to be about to pass mostly intact. Politics makes strange bed felllows but this situation takes the cake. On the right, you have the religious right, pious moralists who don't believe in extramarital sex (or sometimes any sex except that which is intended to have babies). On the left, you have a slice of feminists who see prostitution simply as another means by which men victimize women. In the middle you have the 67% of Canadians who believe that prostitution between 2 consenting adults should be legal. The problem is that practically nobody in this group has the guts to say so publicly. If you're a man who advocates legal prostitution, well obviously you're a frequent customer and if you're a woman, well, what was it you used to do again?

In one fell swoop, Harper has managed to bring together his own nutbar base with simultaneously splitting the NDP base. Shitty policy but great politics!

Of course, nobody, not even the right wing nutbars admit that what they're trying to do is stop consenting people from having sex. Instead, they're all worried about the victimized women. Bizarrely enough, I've seen a number of ex-prostitutes being quoted as saying when they were prostitutes, they thought they were making a choice but now they realize it wasn't really a choice at all. How, one wonders, can they be sure they are choosing what they are doing today?

[guyser]

Time to update this thread.

It appears that there has been insufficient public resistance to this ridiculous piece of legislation

Which means the Conservatives made up the list who could speak and it didnt include many nay sayers.

But the religious and pious ones had centre court.

[gman29]

never been a crime I don't see why we need to make it one now

do you want a regulated industry regulate it. I don't think that regulator should be the criminal justice system

is there some other reason you're wasting time and money on this

There are too many victimless crimes. We need a free society not totalitarianism

I think that for that base it's all about but it becoming unionized or not criminals have a hard time unionizing look at the history of unions

they're already crimes for non disclosure and transmission

it's becoming less and less a factor of Medical Sciences advance also

can we leave the morality police to the Middle East and china.

we need moral laws that are fundamental and universal not cultural morals

don't tell who to have sex with and why. It is that simple.

Edited July 16, 2014 by gman29