XPost: can.politics, bc.politics, ont.politics   
   XPost: ab.politics, man.politics, sk.politics   
   From: gregcarrsober@gmail.com   
      
   On 07/06/2014 5:40 PM, {~_~}Раиса wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   Is that how you get your referrals?   
   >   
   > 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.   
   Good.   
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   Good. Keep it in the flesh pits if were not going to close those down.   
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   Good. Many were sexually abused as children, former runaways or are   
   addicted to alcohol and/or drugs. I wonder how many prostitutes will   
   quit the life under Mackay's 20 million dollar program. Here is a   
   radical thought not to serious but how about a $20 million dollar   
   program to find johns a wife.   
   >   
   > 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.   
   Prostitutes are a hundred times more likely to be murdered than a   
   non-prostitute woman and there chances of dying at the hands of a   
   stranger are even worse. Prostitutes should quit their addictions and   
   get jobs as waitresses, cooks, cleaners, secretaries and NDP politicians.   
      
   --   
   *Read and obey the Bible*   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)