Ontario Decision This Monday

[dreamblade]

What does that mean in layman's terms??

Edited and explained

 

[Esco!]

Decision released! OCA upholds Himel's ruling on 210 and 212(j), but overrules her judgment on 213(c)

Bawdy house and Avails law has been struck down. Communicating for Purposes of Prostitution is still illegal.

This is the best outcome, and a clear victory

Well......I change my mind then, maybe everything will turn out okay. Maybe the risk of challenging the law was worth it.

But if I understand things correctly the government can still appeal this, and not just once but 2 or 3 more times down the road

 

[Ms.FemmeFatale]

Everything anyone posts is their own opinion. It can be an informed one, but we're not writing a treatise to be submitted to peer-review. That's completely fine, I acknowledge and respect your views and experiences in the industry.




I never said you were narrow-minded, just said the scope of your stance is narrow. Not a bad thing, not a good thing, just a thing.

As it stands right now, support staff, agency owners, ARE breaking the law, even in outcalls, because they are living off the avails. Some people are ok with this, others are not. Some are ok with having huge multi-year holes in their income histories, others are not. Some have the resources or the cleverness to cover those up, others do not.

Some have been completely safe in their experiences, but judging from the amount of industry people and red umbrellas present at the Slutwalk, the overworked over-stressed staff at outreach and support organizations, safety IS a concern, and these laws make safety difficult.

You have to draw the line between SW and net based ladies as I call them. Just like you have to draw a line between SC and MP's. Yes for SWs the safety concern is always high and I agree with that. I am speaking strictly from the area I know which is net based.

Also Not everything that one posts is there opinion. I made it clear that my comments were based on conversations and concerns of others. My feelings on the matter personally have not been stated at all because if they were, it would be a different topic now.

My comments may have seemed to have a narrow in scope to you, but that is not what you said. You said my view {as in either point of view or opinion} was a narrow one. Again not the case. I may limit what I say based on the fact that I am speak again of others opinions, but that does not mean my experience or view is a narrow one. It just means is it not a fully publicly shared one.

However, all of that aside - they did do good on this one. They took all the info. involved and really did their best to make something work for ALL sides. I have heard from a few indies and owners, they are happy with this.

 

[Rebecca Richardson]

Well......I change my mind then, maybe everything will turn out okay. Maybe the risk of challenging the law was worth it.

But if I understand things correctly the government can still appeal this, and not just once but 2 or 3 more times down the road

Yes, appeals will come. This is still a landmark step! Nikki@SPOC has tweeted "Whatever happens today, we have every intention of being heard by the SCC, and will fight for our rights at the highest level."

Further clarification on what Dreamblade said:
210 overturn upheld
210 is keeping a common bawdy house, being found in a common bawdy house, being a landlord or tenant of a common bawdy house. Himel ruled this law is unconstitutional, the Ontario Court of Appeals agrees with her!

213(j) overturn upheld
213(j) is living off the avails of prostitution (taking money or gifts that are a result of prostitution). This would be stuff like an agency owner, a phone girl, a driver, a web designer, a photographer, etc but also friends and family of prostitutes receiving money or gifts (paying for Christmas presents, buying medication for dependents, etc). Himel ruled this law is unconstitutional and the Ontario Court of Appeals agrees with her!


Communicating for the purposes of prostitution in public is still illegal. Phone calls, txts, emails and such are usually done in private.


I'm sure once Nikki has breathing space she'll come on and explain in more details. Press release starts now!! (519 Church St)

 

[dreamblade]

You have to draw the line between SW and net based ladies as I call them. Just like you have to draw a line between SC and MP's. Yes for SWs the safety concern is always high and I agree with that. I am speaking strictly from the area I know which is net based.

Also Not everything that one posts is there opinion. I made it clear that my comments were based on conversations and concerns of others. My feelings on the matter personally have not been stated at all because if they were, it would be a different topic now.

My comments may have seemed to have a narrow in scope to you, but that is not what you said. You said my view {as in either point of view or opinion} was a narrow one. Again not the case. I may limit what I say based on the fact that I am speak again of others opinions, but that does not mean my experience or view is a narrow one. It just means is it not a fully publicly shared one.

However, all of that aside - they did do good on this one. They took all the info. involved and really did their best to make something work for ALL sides. I have heard from a few indies and owners, they are happy with this.

We're talking about the same thing, really. If my statements have offended in any way, I do appologise.

I do agree it is the best outcome, too

 

[Ms.FemmeFatale]

We're talking about the same thing, really. If my statements have offended in any way, I do appologise.

I do agree it is the best outcome, too

No offense taken, just nit-pick clarification because I am a woman and it is Monday. LOL .

It is a very good outcome and I know many on both sides that are happy.

 

[Esco!]

They have 30 days to appeal. And the government has been given 1 year to rewrite the law books:

https://www.thestar.com/news/ontari...ws-brothels-but-soliciting-ruled-illegal?bn=1

The court stayed its judgment for 30 days to allow both sides time to appeal, and suspended their ruling on bawdy houses for one year to allow Parliament the chance to redraft legislation. The ruling gave 30 days before the amended living on the avails provision comes into force

 

[dreamblade]

More info here:

 

[PussyScientist]

Here it is. Who can explain in in easy words what in meand to the agencies and Indies. Plus how are the review boards goin to benefit of it?.

https://www.torontosun.com/2012/03/26/ontario-top-court-legalizes-brothels-soliciting-stays-illegal

TORONTO - Ontario’s highest court has struck down the bawdy house provisions as unconstitutional and amended the pimping provisions of the Criminal Code so that only those who exploit hookers will be prosecuted.
Toronto won’t become the Amsterdam of North America for a while, at least a year if not longer, and street prostitution remains as illegal as ever, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled Monday.

In a long-awaited judgment of a landmark lower court ruling, the appeal court on Monday suspended declaring the bawdy house section invalid for one year to give Parliament a chance to “draft a Charter-compliant provision” or to pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court.
The appeal court clarified that the prohibition on living on the avails of prostitution — known as pimping — applies only to those who do so “in circumstances of exploitation,” the judgment released Monday indicated.

The amended pimping rules take effect 30 days from Monday, the court ruled.
In September 2010, Ontario Superior Court Justice Susan Himel struck down three Criminal Code sections outlawing prostitution — communicating for the purposes of prostitution, living on the avails, and operating a common bawdy house.

Himel agreed with law professor Alan Young, who won the lower court ruling on behalf of dominatrix Terri Jean Bedford, 52, and prostitutes Amy Lebovitch, 33, and Valerie Scott, 53, that these laws jeopardize the safety of sex workers by preventing them from legally working indoors or hiring security.

“The prohibition on living on the avails infringes Section 7 (the life, liberty and security) rights of the Charter to the extent that it criminalizes non-exploitative commercial relationships between prostitutes and other people,” Justice David Doherty wrote on behalf of fellow judges Marc Rosenberg and Kathryn Feldman.

“We do not strike down the prohibition” but limit it to those who “live on the avails of prostitution in circumstances of exploitation,” stated the judgment.
“This cures the constitutional defect and aligns the text of the provision” with the goal of banning exploitation and abuse of hookers by pimps, the court ruled.

But the Crown’s appeal of the communicating for the purposes of prostitution was successful, so that section stays on the books. The appeal court ruled this law doesn’t violate the prostitutes’ “liberty” or Section 7 rights and that it was a reasonable limit on the right to expression.

Two judges disagreed, however, saying the communicating provision should also be tossed out for Section 7 violations.
The prohibition means that street prostitution — where hookers solicit business — remains effectively illegal.

 

[Rebecca Richardson]

Huge thank you to SPOC!

 

[dreamblade]

Here it is. Who can explain in in easy words what in meand to the agencies and Indies. Plus how are the review boards goin to benefit of it?.

In plain English, it means Indys can breath a sigh of relief, hire bodyguards and staff who can report their earnings without any risk of prosecution. Agency owners, provided they are not being exploitative, can do the same. Street walkers are still at risk, however.

 

[dreamblade]

Huge thank you to SPOC!

+1:yahoo:

 

[Esco!]

Dreamblade, could you post an update in this thread as soon as the govt has decided to appeal this new ruling?? There's is still a small chance they might not appeal.

TIA

 

[dreamblade]

Dreamblade, could you post an update in this thread as soon as the govt has decided to appeal this new ruling?? There's is still a small chance they might not appeal.

TIA

Yep! I'm all over it.

 

[Rebecca Richardson]

In plain English, it means Indys can breath a sigh of relief, hire bodyguards and staff who can report their earnings without any risk of prosecution. Agency owners, provided they are not being exploitative, can do the same. Street walkers are still at risk, however.

*street workers or outdoor sex workers, handsome. Let's celebrate my new-found ability to legally give Christmas gifts by also respecting the right to self-identify.

 

[dreamblade]

*street workers or outdoor sex workers, handsome. Let's celebrate my new-found ability to legally give Christmas gifts by also respecting the right to self-identify.

I stand corrected. Appologies.

 

[Baz]

This is a sad day indeed. I believe the Federal government will follow the will of majority of the population and put an end to prostitution. We need to help people who cannot help themselves. A small battle may have been won due to a weak Canadian Constitution but the war will be won by our elected officials.

 

[Melonballs2]

Congratulation and a job well done to the people involved!:clapping::clapping:

 

[-b]

What I thought from what I read earlier is that the courts believe that these women
should have safe working place but the courts also said it is not for them to decide
if prostitution is legal or not, that it is for the Government to decide.......
I could be wrong....this is not over ......until Harper gets his 2 cents.....

 

[Esco!]

This is a sad day indeed. I believe the Federal government will follow the will of majority of the population and put an end to prostitution. We need to help people who cannot help themselves. A small battle may have been won due to a weak Canadian Constitution but the war will be won by our elected officials

You often see the glass half empty, dont you??