SexSafetySecurity
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2013
- Messages
- 24
The PCEPA (formerly Bill C-36) consultations are being held by the liberal government as a preliminary assessment of the impact of the various laws that were put into place in December 2015. So, to some extent, there are efforts underway to examine the laws, their impact, their effectiveness and their constitutionality.
The amendments and the new laws that came about from PCEPA are quite complex and, as Blackram observes, are frequently quite ‘confusingly’ worded. Having said this, Canadian laws relating to various aspects of the sex industry have frequently been confusing and contradictory and, as was demonstrated in the Bedford case, frequently place people involved in transactional sex (particularly those that are most socially vulnerable) at elevated risk of harm.
As the laws have been in effect for a year and a half, various law enforcement agencies have had adequate time to determine if and how they are going to enforce them (individually and collectively). The response of law enforcement has largely mirrored the response to other changes in law, enforcement is based on response to complaints and/or political climate, so enforcement has been heavily influenced by the social and political conditions that are present in individual communities across Canada. In places like Vancouver and Victoria there has been little will to enforce the laws since the two police forces have come to the conclusion that enforcement would cause more harm than good and there simply have not been a large number of legitimate complaints to justify enforcement. This is not the case in other cities and municipalities across Canada. In places such as York Region, London, Niagra, Edmonton, Calgary, and Moncton there have been several law enforcement initiatives targeting online and traditional spaces, specifically in relation to procuring, advertising, material benefit and purchasing.
In the months and years to come the Federal government will continue with the series of consultations (“round tables”) that are currently underway, a series of formal mandatory evaluations of the laws will be conducted, and various legal (constitutional) challenges will be advanced through the courts. While I appreciate (and to some degree share) the belief that policy makers, legislators and the judiciary are influenced (“swayed”) by mainstream media coverage of the sex industry, the judicial decision in Bedford (which is now the benchmark case in Canada) set forward a very detailed set of conditions for the evaluation of evidence in relation to the effects of the different laws and mainstream media stories and the unsubstantiated assertions of advocates simply cannot hold any weight in the decisions about the law. The value of evidence in determining the impact, effects and effectiveness of the laws also features centrally in the liberal government’s platform (a position that was certainly not shared by the former Harper government).
In my opinion, the development of a strong evidence-base is more important than ever. This is the reason that my colleagues and I are continuing to do the research that we do ( and ). We will continue to use the findings from our research to inform the ongoing development of policy and law in Canada (and beyond).
The amendments and the new laws that came about from PCEPA are quite complex and, as Blackram observes, are frequently quite ‘confusingly’ worded. Having said this, Canadian laws relating to various aspects of the sex industry have frequently been confusing and contradictory and, as was demonstrated in the Bedford case, frequently place people involved in transactional sex (particularly those that are most socially vulnerable) at elevated risk of harm.
As the laws have been in effect for a year and a half, various law enforcement agencies have had adequate time to determine if and how they are going to enforce them (individually and collectively). The response of law enforcement has largely mirrored the response to other changes in law, enforcement is based on response to complaints and/or political climate, so enforcement has been heavily influenced by the social and political conditions that are present in individual communities across Canada. In places like Vancouver and Victoria there has been little will to enforce the laws since the two police forces have come to the conclusion that enforcement would cause more harm than good and there simply have not been a large number of legitimate complaints to justify enforcement. This is not the case in other cities and municipalities across Canada. In places such as York Region, London, Niagra, Edmonton, Calgary, and Moncton there have been several law enforcement initiatives targeting online and traditional spaces, specifically in relation to procuring, advertising, material benefit and purchasing.
In the months and years to come the Federal government will continue with the series of consultations (“round tables”) that are currently underway, a series of formal mandatory evaluations of the laws will be conducted, and various legal (constitutional) challenges will be advanced through the courts. While I appreciate (and to some degree share) the belief that policy makers, legislators and the judiciary are influenced (“swayed”) by mainstream media coverage of the sex industry, the judicial decision in Bedford (which is now the benchmark case in Canada) set forward a very detailed set of conditions for the evaluation of evidence in relation to the effects of the different laws and mainstream media stories and the unsubstantiated assertions of advocates simply cannot hold any weight in the decisions about the law. The value of evidence in determining the impact, effects and effectiveness of the laws also features centrally in the liberal government’s platform (a position that was certainly not shared by the former Harper government).
In my opinion, the development of a strong evidence-base is more important than ever. This is the reason that my colleagues and I are continuing to do the research that we do ( and ). We will continue to use the findings from our research to inform the ongoing development of policy and law in Canada (and beyond).
