XPost: can.politics, bc.politics, ont.politics   
   XPost: ab.politics, man.politics, sk.politics   
   From: "@nyet.ca   
      
   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.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)