EmployeeoftheMonth, on 27 October 2012 - 11:11 AM, said:
I disagree your material is more relevant. I would agree in your experience it's more relevant to your opinion but that's as far as it goes. The funny part is you two are probably closer to the same opinion than either of you think but I suppose argument is much more fun.
You failed to display properly that you got his point at all. So much so that as I said it seemed like you were doing so purposely.
Sometimes Wetcoaster, you aren't always right and your opinion isn't always the best option it's just an opinion built on your own experiences. Your experience which I sure have come from your profession would bring about certain situations and circumstances more than others. That would certainly skew the "pool" of people you would have your opinion based on.
Perhaps I'm wrong though and you've done volunteer work in community houses and soup kitchens etc, etc, etc. How many prostitutes outside of your profession have you spent any real time with? I know that question could come off as a joke but I'm just wondering if your opinion is formulated on anything other than things related to being a lawyer.
Yup, you are wrong,
It is not just my personal experience as a peace officer and lawyer. And yes I have worked at the community level in the past with vulnerable groups as well as volunteering pro bono
legal services to help navigate the rocky legal shoals for such people.
Also the supporting evidence upon which I rely comers from materials cited by the SCOC in the Prostitution Reference case and materials filed by the government in response to the current suit that relate directly to Canada. BTW the Plaintiff/Respondents in this case have not contradicted the materials filed by the governemnt Defendant/Appellant but they claim their Charter rights override any such conclusions. That position has already been rejected by the SCOC in the earlier Prostitution Reference case that took the Charter into account. And as you may have noted the SCOC in accepting the Ontario Court of Appeal decision for its appeal docket specifically ordered the law as currently written to be continued in force.
This is opposed to self-serving statements from an escort service owner in Melbourne Australia and criticism of the US (where the laws on prostitution vary from state to state) in a UN recommendation.
As I said relevant supporting material to back up my opinion vs irrelevant generic material relating to different countries and different laws. That to me is the difference between an informed opinion relating specifically to the issue being discussed in this thread such as mine as opposed to an uninformed opinion for which you seem to advocate. And I have pointed this out in past posts, so this claim that I have not understood the uninformed point being made seems specious in the extreme.
And the quote at post #132 and for which some odd reason failed to provide a cite noted the problem with the UN recommendation #92.86 by member state Uruguay... here is the full paper:
Unlike Canada the US has not even signed on to any number of international treaties related to human rights and protection of the vulnerable:
With a new administration and Congress, the United States has an important opportunity to reposition itself as a global leader on human rights. One means towards that goal is to sign and ratify core human rights treaties. Chief among these are international conventions relating to children, women, persons with disabilities, torture, enforced disappearance, and the use of anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions.
The US has not ratified any international human rights treaties since December 2002, when it ratified two optional protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Since that time, important new treaties have been adopted and other long-standing treaties have gained new member states. Unfortunately, the US has too often remained outside these efforts. For example, the US is the only country other than Somalia that has not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the most widely and rapidly ratified human rights treaty in history. It is one of only seven countries-together with Iran, Nauru, Palau, Somalia, Sudan and Tonga- that has failed to ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).
Also there is another fundamental difference between the US and Canada in that the US federal government has very limited powers to force states to accept even binding UN resolutions and treaties let alone recommendations from a study group. And as we have seen in the Khadr case the US federal government itself freely ignores binding international law when it sees fit - unlike Canada where the SCOC references and applies international law and standards when assessing Charter breaches.
Note what was not included in the quoted text (and something that I pointed out as a problem when trying to compare apples and orangutans - another term for irrelvant supporting materials being produced) .
Many of the laws and policies that undermine the human rights of sex workers operate at the level of states.
Policies such as “prostitution free zones” implemented in different jurisdictions across the U.S. give the police power to arrest on the basis of how individuals are perceived or the way they are dressed, which can lead to personal judgments on what is perceived as ‘acceptable attire’ by individual officers. More states in the U.S. are also now mandating minimum sentences so that judges are required to incarcerate people convicted for prostitution-related offenses even if the judge would prefer to provide the individuals with access to resources or services. In addition, some states have sentencing guidelines and judicial practices which make a third charge for prostitution-related offenses a felony, and some states subject people arrested on prostitution-related charges such as solicitation to involuntary/mandatory HIV testing and impose higher penalties (including felonies) on those found to be living with HIV. Another growing practice is sex offender registration of people convicted for sex work related offenses.
In the US the issue is quite different than what is being litigated in Canada. Hence my comment about RELEVANT supporting material - i.e. material that applies to the problems in Canada vis a vis
the specific provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada that are at issue before the courts. That is how one forms an informed opinion. Seems obvious to me but then this is what I have been trained to do and for which I have years of experience let alone direct personal experience IN CANADA.
Edited by Wetcoaster, 27 October 2012 - 12:34 PM.