The Star Phoenix reports that, in light of the Ontario Court of Appeal’s ruling striking down the prohibition on keeping bawdy houses, the City of Saskatoon has proposed a requirement that escort agencies and other “adult service businesses” operate in the city’s industrial areas, far from residential neighbourhoods. Where businesses could operate would be dictated by business licenses.
The proposal would require adult service businesses not currently located in the specified areas to relocate after their current business license expires. Individual escorts would be permitted to operate out of their homes but only as offices where they do not see clients.
Mariana Valverde, a criminologist at the University of Toronto, was quoted in the Star Phoenix as praising Saskatoon for anticipating the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision on the bawdy house provision, which could strike down the law across Canada:
“Municipalities have to face up to the fact that the prostitution laws are not going to survive,” Valverde said, “and the businesses will have to be regulated.”
However, she criticized the city’s proposal on the basis that it could isolate sex work and make it more dangerous:
“The general principle should be you put these businesses where there are already similar business with similar hours and uses,” Valverde said. “Any place you can put a bar you should be able to put an escort service. What you don’t do is isolate them and stigmatize them and heighten risk for the workers.”
The CBC is reporting that yesterday’s arrest of Charles Leblanc on the grounds of the New Brunswick legislature will now be handled by the RCMP. Leblanc, a blogger and well-known critic of the Fredericton police, was banned from the legislative precinct for life in 2006. Read about his latest case here.
The CBC is reporting that Charles Leblanc was arrested this morning for trespassing at the New Brunswick Legislature. Leblanc was banned in 2006 from entering the legislature grounds. Earlier this month the New Brunswick government decided not to proceed with a charge of criminal libel against Leblanc, citing concerns about the constitutionality of the law.
A lawyer in Prince Edward Island is publishing a series of children’s books on the Charter of Rights. Read the CBC story here.
After camping through an Atlantic winter, the Occupy protesters in St. John’s, Newfoundland, have packed up their tents. Read the Globe and Mail story here.
Alberta’s top court has ruled that the University of Calgary’s attempts to discipline two students for criticizing a professor of Facebook amounted to an infringement of their freedom of expression rights.
Justice Marina Paperny, on behalf of the court stated that “the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to the disciplinary proceedings undertaken by the university,” which is a break from previous jurisprudence that affirmed that universities are not government actors within the meaning of section 32 of the Charter. The court also felt the decision was unreasonable from an administrative law perspective.
Justice Brian O’Ferral’s concurrent opinion tried to not overstate the question of whether universities were ‘Charter-free-zones,’ instead focusing on “whether, in disciplining the students for their comments or for their association with the social media site which was critical of one of the university’s sessional lecturers, the university’s disciplinary body, the General Faculties Council, ought to have considered whether its discipline violated the students’ right to freedom of expression and freedom of association.”
Lawyer for the intervening Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Colin Feasby, noted that a university’s autonomy should not be used to avoid Charter scrutiny in its disciplinary processes.
For more information click here.
The Federal government’s latest cuts target women and contradict a commitment to gender equality. Canada Women’s Health Network reports:
“Staff and directors managing the centres and networks add their voices to the growing body of Canadians who are shocked and outraged by the short-sightedness of the federal government cuts to programs, services and the federal civil service. These cuts are in direct contradiction to the pledges regarding gender equality that Canada has made both in international commitments and to Canadians. Women are being hit particularly hard with these cuts, and, because the research being eliminated generated proactive, preventative strategies for health promotion, these cuts will cost everyone in the long term. The end of this work will be most strongly felt by the disadvantaged and the disempowered.”
Further, “Dr. Liz Whynot, Chair of the Board of Directors of the BC Centre of Excellence for Women’s Health expressed her concern that ‘This cut threatens the significant work on women’s health that has been undertaken across the country, and represents an enormous loss of capacity to monitor and improve the health of women in Canada, particularly those who are marginalized.’”
Click here to read the press release by the Canadian Women’s Health network.
According to Bill Frelick and Jennifer Egsgard, the deemed human smuggling bill to “protect” Canada’s immigration system will only harm the most vulnerable and desperate: the victims of human smuggling.
If there are “reasonable grounds to suspect” certain groups of individuals association with human smuggling (including, those who were themselves victims of smuggling), these individuals can be sent to jail up to one full year. This includes children who are 16 and 17 years of age.
“What would constitute a group is not defined and could technically include as few as two people travelling together. Children under age 16 in the group would either be detained with their parents or separated from them and sent to a child welfare agency. Under international law, 16 and 17 year olds are also children, yet Canada would run afoul of its obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child by subjecting them to one-year detention.”
“Canadian law already provides the government with adequate procedures to deal with the concerns that C-31 purports to address. Current law allows the government to detain any foreign nationals who have not established their identity, are a flight risk, or might be a danger to the public. An independent decision maker reviews whether detention is reasonable within the first 48 hours. Officials must review detention decisions after a week and then monthly until release or deportation. C-31 would remove this scrutiny while a designated person languishes in detention.”
To read the full Op-Ed in the Toronto Star, click here.
Julian Assange is running for a seat in Australia’s senate and he purports to wanting to bring liberty back to the forefront of Australian politics.
The WikiLeaks founder also plans to be a ”fierce defender of free media” if elected to the Senate. He repeatedly advocates that he will not shy from using parliamentary privilege to hinder court suppression orders and other ”excessive constraints” on free access to information. Mr. Assange declared that he ”could be described as a libertarian” and his platform appears to highlight this.
Also, Mr. Assange’s senate platform appears to be littered with many accusations of Australia’s current political climate and how, as he claims, it is continuously disregarding the interests of the citizens. In his run for Senate bid, Assange is keeping ”all possibilities” alive. This includes running as an independent, seeking an alliance with another party, or launching a new party. While support for WikiLeaks is strongest among Greens voters, Mr Assange noted recent polling had shown 53 per cent approval across the spectrum. This is interesting considering he has pending criminal charges looming.
In addition, he repeatedly emphasized the importance of protecting small business and individuals from the power of government and large corporations. As well, with regards to social issues such as same-sex marriage and euthanasia, he acknowledged “strong arguments on all sides”. Even if he is not successful in his bid, it will be impossible for others in the Senate race to avoid offering their thoughts and answering questions regarding the tough issues Assange is bringing to the forefront of his campaign.
Update on Taser Use in Australia
A man was killed in Australia by a police taser on March 18th. The police were responding to a robbery call. The man did resist arrest but it is unclear if he was even involved in the robbery itself or if there was even a robbery taking place.
Australia is facing a dilemma with the use of tasers by the police force. As seen in a past blog, the numbers are astonishing as to how many people are killed or seriously injured by taser use each year in Australia.
A five-year study into the use of the weapons published in 2010 showed 85 per cent of cases involved a person with a mental illness and 28 per cent of those targeted were unarmed.
