Unintended consequences: strip clubs?

[blackram]

Several commentators have suggested the federal government’s proposed prostitution law is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford.

Be that as it may, there are other difficulties with the legislation. Specifically, the legislation may well criminalize activity, such as strip clubs, that the government did not intend to make illegal.

Earlier this month, the Conservative government brought in new legislation that criminalizes the buying of sex in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Bedford that declared several sections of the Criminal Code related to prostitution to be unconstitutional.

Most people see a difference between going to a strip club and hiring a prostitute. While perhaps not the most elevated form of entertainment, Canadians have long accepted strip clubs. Some readers may remember the litigation over Pandora’s Box in Ottawa in the early 1970s. Since then, strip clubs have been part of the Canadian landscape much like adult video stores and magazines.

Unfortunately and probably unintentionally, strip clubs may well fall under the federal government’s proposed protection of communities and exploited persons act.

The current legislation is too broad and requires clarity in some of the definitions. For example, the preamble includes the line: “Whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes the social harm caused by the objectification of the human body and the commodification of sexual activity. . . .”

Under the legislation, anyone paying for “sexual services” is guilty of an offence with mandatory minimum sentences. The act provides that everyone “who, in any place, obtains for consideration, or communicates with anyone for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of a person is guilty” of an offence.
Such people will have a criminal record and a judge will not have the option of granting a discharge.

Note that the provision doesn’t define “sexual services.” Based on the preamble’s line about the objectification of the human body, “sexual services” must be defined broadly. It could, on a simple reading of the legislation, include paying people to take off their clothes so the viewer can obtain sexual gratification. Certainly, a lap dance performed for a paying customer would fall under the legislation.

Is it likely police will lay charges under the proposed legislation against someone getting a lap dance at a strip club? From my own experience, if a section in the Criminal Code can potentially apply to certain activities, some police officer somewhere will lay a charge and some Crown somewhere will prosecute.

The government can easily avoid all of this confusion by a simple legislative change defining “sexual services” in more detail. It may not resolve the larger constitutional questions but it at least focuses the debate on what really is at issue.

 

[Wanker]

Does it really matter anymore?.

I used to be a frequent SJ user till they started charging more for drinks and shorter songs. At $20 a pop it is not worth visiting again.

 

[RAWD]

It may be again if other hobbying options become more risky or are eliminated.

 

[blackram]

It may be again if other hobbying options become more risky or are eliminated.

In the American South, they are so desperate for entertainment that they started a chain for PG-rated entertainment, masquerading as a restaurant, called Hooters. Hooters had no chance of success up here, but we may find ourselves back to silliness again up here too.

 

[RAWD]

Tilted Kilt FTW!

 

[Leo]

Lawyers here want to put on their 2 cent's worth?.

 

[RAWD]

The bill targets the purchase of sexual services and those who profit from the sale of sexual services.

Dance performances, including those of an erotic nature, could be said to be artistic in nature. The problem is that once contact occurs, you're going beyond observing. anything that provides sexual gratification (read into that what you will) is well established in case law (including three previous SCC decisions) to be prostitution.

Ever wonder why "no-touching" rules existed in strip clubs?

Man, would it suck if we went back to those crappy old days....

 

[Madman]

The bill targets the purchase of sexual services and those who profit from the sale of sexual services.

Dance performances, including those of an erotic nature, could be said to be artistic in nature. The problem is that once contact occurs, you're going beyond observing. anything that provides sexual gratification (read into that what you will) is well established in case law (including three previous SCC decisions) to be prostitution.

Ever wonder why "no-touching" rules existed in strip clubs?

Man, would it suck if we went back to those crappy old days....

IT will and we need to vote out Harper so Mackay and Joy Smith go down the proverbial toilet with him.

He's now lost BC votes because of the proposed pipeline and I'm sure he's lost ONtario with his Daddy knows best attitude. The problem is he will destroy our industry prior to his exit!


We NEED TO TAKE THIS BATTLE TO THE BATTLEAX HERSELF!!

BILL C-36 TOWN HALL MEETING: Etobicoke - June 19th - with Joy Smith

https://www.facebook.com/events/228350737374712/

Joy Smith will be there along with two supporters trying to brainwash the public and demonize the Johns!

 

[blackram]

IT will and we need to vote out Harper so Mackay and Joy Smith go down the proverbial toilet with him.

He's now lost BC votes because of the proposed pipeline and I'm sure he's lost ONtario with his Daddy knows best attitude. The problem is he will destroy our industry prior to his exit!


We NEED TO TAKE THIS BATTLE TO THE BATTLEAX HERSELF!!

BILL C-36 TOWN HALL MEETING: Etobicoke - June 19th - with Joy Smith

https://www.facebook.com/events/228350737374712/

Joy Smith will be there along with two supporters trying to brainwash the public and demonize the Johns!

I think if anybody here is going, it's best not to defend the Johns or the businesses during any question and answer period. I think the best course of action is to ask Mrs. Smith what her religious background is, and how much this played a role in her support of the bill? For example:

Q: "Good evening Mrs. Smith, I have a couple of questions for you. Are you a religious woman? And do you believe your religious views should trump the safety of sex workers, who nearly universally say that this law will put their safety at risk to an even greater degree?"

 

[Reverse]

I think if anybody here is going, it's best not to defend the Johns or the businesses during any question and answer period. I think the best course of action is to ask Mrs. Smith what her religious background is, and how much this played a role in her support of the bill? For example:

Q: "Good evening Mrs. Smith, I have a couple of questions for you. Are you a religious woman? And do you believe your religious views should trump the safety of sex workers, who nearly universally say that this law will put their safety at risk to an even greater degree?"

Very good question because it is exactly there tactic to fluff off anyone involved in the industry as self serving. The fact is most of these abolitionist and groups alike are lined up for funding as are the police chiefs hoping for bigger budgets and the police unions hoping for more positions to go after all the new criminals this law will create.

 

[Arnob]

:Worried: