Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72

[scrollgirl]

The Supreme Court issued its decision on Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford at noon today. Our last exam was from 9:00am to 12:00pm this morning and by the time the proctor said "stop typing", my friend had already checked his email. (He's on the Lexum mailing list, the big nerd.)

CBC.ca:
The Supreme Court of Canada has struck down the country's

Comments

Congrats x 2!

[fredericks]

Congrats on wrapping up your exams! Hope you're able to get in some of that TV/movie/relaxation time you postponed. :)

Re: Congrats x 2!

[scrollgirl]

Thanks very much! Yeah, I've got an episode or two of Elementary waiting in the queue, and after that maybe I'll marathon DS9. :D

[ponygirl2000]

Yay for the end of exams!

As for the SC decision it's going to be interesting to see how the Conservatives play this. It's definitely going to be a hot button issue for them but I don't know if they'll let it lie, and have no federal law - much like abortion - or come up with something to work around the decision but still appease their "law and order" base.

[scrollgirl]

Yeah, I can't imagine that they're just going to let the legislation die altogether -- I expect they'll campaign on it (which I dread) and hopefully will focus on the pimps who "live off the avails" of women's work. I mean, let's just hope there's enough political pressure and public opinion to force the Conservatives into a reasonable approach, now that the SCC has put a spotlight on women's health and safety.

ETA: Oh wait, maybe they won't campaign on it since they'll have to have it in place in a year, which is before the next election.

[thenightsfall]

Oh, I remember that relief when exams were over. Congrats! And relax. :-)

[scrollgirl]

Thanks! I went over to my sister's tonight and had Coke and rum! And cookies! Relaxing is a go. :D

[lynnenne]

While I'm glad that sex workers will now have safer places to conduct business, I have reservations about striking down the "living on the avails" clause. It leaves too many openings for pimps, traffickers and even corporations to exploit women's bodies for money. (Not that corporations don't do that already.) If there are going to be brothels, I want the women to own and run the houses, kind of like a co-op, rather than the "salon" model used by hairdressers where the women must pay fees or percentages for a place in the stable.

The government might also consider looking at the Nordic model, which criminalizes the johns, pimps and traffickers rather than the women - who, let's face it, in the majority of cases are conscripted into sex work because of violence and a horrific lack of choices.

[scrollgirl]

I suspect Parliament will be going back to the drawing board since I can't imagine them not having ANY regulation of prostitution, so I hope they take a good look at the reasons behind the SCC's decision and let those priorities of protecting women's lives and health guide their thinking. I mean, stranger things have happened? Someone mentioned the New South Wales model, but I don't know much about it.

Hopefully the gov't takes the opportunity to actually consult with sex workers and people who understand this area of law before they start worrying about the opinions of nosy neighbours and businesses worrying about property values.

[lynnenne]

I'm not familiar with the New South Wales model, either. Thanks for the link.

Hopefully the gov't takes the opportunity to actually consult with sex workers and people who understand this area of law before they start worrying about the opinions of nosy neighbours and businesses worrying about property values.

I think the municipalities will definitely want to put in some zoning laws, though. When I lived in Moncton, there was a strip club right next door to a high school, and the patrons (many of whom had criminal records) started harassing and propositioning high school girls coming and going to school. As the aunt of a 14-year-old, I would find that pretty creepy and worry about her safety. There do need to be some limits set on location.

[scrollgirl]

there was a strip club right next door to a high school, and the patrons (many of whom had criminal records) started harassing and propositioning high school girls coming and going to school.

Ooh, yes, that is a very good point. We must have some kind of law already on the books about sex offenders being within school zones, but you don't have to be a *convicted* sex offender to start harassing girls and women of any age, so having zoning laws is probably really important.

(Criminal law is not my area of expertise, but I should probably read up more on this stuff...)