Canada’s prostitution laws unconstitutional, court rules

[Shwa]

From the Star:

Canadas prostitution laws unconstitutional, court rules

A Toronto judge has struck down Canadas prostitution laws, effectively decriminalizing activities associated with the worlds oldest trade.

These laws, individually and together, force prostitutes to choose between their liberty interest and their right to security of the person as protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Justice Susan Himel of Ontarios Superior Court of Justice said in Tuesdays landmark decision.

The long-awaited judgment had been on reserve for nearly a year.

The decision is effective immediately.

Could this result in an Amsterdamnation of Canada?

Edit: CC section on Bawdy Houses

Edited September 28, 2010 by Shwa

[Michael Hardner]

Local by-laws could still presumably restrict the practice...

[wyly]

Local by-laws could still presumably restrict the practice...

I don't think local bylaws can overrule...bylaws may restrict where one can do business but the business itself is not illegal...so rather than having hookers roaming the streets uncontrolled cities are better off zoning the activity to industrial/commercial districts...

having been through the red-light districts of Amsterdam on many occasions I can confirm it's not a huge problem...license it and tax like any other business...

[DrGreenthumb]

From the Star:

Canada’s prostitution laws unconstitutional, court rules

Could this result in an Amsterdamnation of Canada?

Edit: CC section on Bawdy Houses

Kind of ruined Herr Harper's little plan of chasing the prostitutes out of their homes and into the cars of the willie pictons of this world.

Great decision from the supreme court. Now we need a follow up to this case that shows our drug laws increase the danger to drug users. I hope the courts start to push back against the Harper attack on our freedoms.

[Michael Hardner]

having been through the red-light districts of Amsterdam on many occasions I can confirm it's not a huge problem...license it and tax like any other business...

Still, it's not like any other business.

It's a good thing to remove religion from the framework of lawmaking, but this activity still strikes me as a vice, like drinking and gambling. Bob Rae, Mike Harris and Dalton were wiling to be our bartenders and card dealers, but will the province be our pimp ?

[DrGreenthumb]

Still, it's not like any other business.

It's a good thing to remove religion from the framework of lawmaking, but this activity still strikes me as a vice, like drinking and gambling. Bob Rae, Mike Harris and Dalton were wiling to be our bartenders and card dealers, but will the province be our pimp ?

Vice is different from crime. Eating sweets is a vice, but the province doesn't run the bakeries and donut shops. It shouldn't be illegal to sell pleasure services. Forcing someone to do it should be.

[ToadBrother]

Kind of ruined Herr Harper's little plan of chasing the prostitutes out of their homes and into the cars of the willie pictons of this world.

Great decision from the supreme court. Now we need a follow up to this case that shows our drug laws increase the danger to drug users. I hope the courts start to push back against the Harper attack on our freedoms.

Let's first see if it's challenged at the Federal court level. Frankly I think it's collapse is inevitable. The Victorian era prostitution laws were pretty hard to justify even 100 years ago, but after the horrors of the Picton trial and the realities of just how vulnerable streetwalkers are, I think that not legalizing bawdy houses is as vile and immoral as a society can get.

Bring on the red light districts, bring on the controls, and maybe we might have a chance of keeping more of these women safe, and more ability to possible redirect them out of the sex trade than infrequently locking them and their clients up.

[Michael Hardner]

Vice is different from crime. Eating sweets is a vice, but the province doesn't run the bakeries and donut shops. It shouldn't be illegal to sell pleasure services. Forcing someone to do it should be.

But isn't this different ?

Do we feel the same about sex workers as we do about bakers ?

Should we ? Is this just a prudish hang-up, or is there something depressing about somebody who is forced into this career because of a lack of options ? If it's just a job like any other, then can we deny someone EI for not taking a position in this field ?

The base sexual act isn't the same as putting a bun in the oven, in either sense of the word.

[ToadBrother]

Still, it's not like any other business.

It's a good thing to remove religion from the framework of lawmaking, but this activity still strikes me as a vice, like drinking and gambling. Bob Rae, Mike Harris and Dalton were wiling to be our bartenders and card dealers, but will the province be our pimp ?

We've already seen how even the harshest anti-prostitution laws don't prevent the trade. Making prostitution illegal has done nothing but drive into the alleys, where every psycopath from Jack the Ripper to Robert Picton can take them at their own pleasure.

I'd sooner see the government as a pimp than the situation now.

[ToadBrother]

But isn't this different ?

Do we feel the same about sex workers as we do about bakers ?

Should we ? Is this just a prudish hang-up, or is there something depressing about somebody who is forced into this career because of a lack of options ? If it's just a job like any other, then can we deny someone EI for not taking a position in this field ?

The base sexual act isn't the same as putting a bun in the oven, in either sense of the word.

Of course it's the same. Sex is as primal an urge as eating or defecating. Creating these artificial barriers is a mental exercise, not a biological one. Prostitutes even in the English-speaking world were once much more tolerated, and it was really only during periods of puritanical zeal like the days of the Roundheads or the Victorian era (the latter being the source of most of our anti-prostitution laws) that prostitution was ever seen as something that needed to be banned.

[DrGreenthumb]

But isn't this different ?

Do we feel the same about sex workers as we do about bakers ?

Should we ? Is this just a prudish hang-up, or is there something depressing about somebody who is forced into this career because of a lack of options ? If it's just a job like any other, then can we deny someone EI for not taking a position in this field ?

The base sexual act isn't the same as putting a bun in the oven, in either sense of the word.

Force isn't the issue here, why shouldn't a woman,(or man ) be free to choose to accept cash payment for giving sexual pleasure? People already have sex for all kinds of reasons including thinking they will get something in retuin for it. Even marriage can be construed as prostitution at some level. What about the girl who goes home from the bar with a guy who she accepted 50 dollars worth of drinks from? It IS a prudish hangup. What about those who are forced to work hard manual labour because of a lack of options? They probably get paid way less for using their body for work than does a prostitute.

[nicky10013]

We've already seen how even the harshest anti-prostitution laws don't prevent the trade. Making prostitution illegal has done nothing but drive into the alleys, where every psycopath from Jack the Ripper to Robert Picton can take them at their own pleasure.

I'd sooner see the government as a pimp than the situation now.

Couldn't agree more.

[wyly]

Still, it's not like any other business.

it's a service like any other...how is it any different than an athlete selling his/her physical skills or a masseuse or a dancer...

It's a good thing to remove religion from the framework of lawmaking, but this activity still strikes me as a vice, like drinking and gambling.

I don't gamble but I don't pass judgment on those that do other than I think they're silly...I certainly never thought of sex as a vice it's normal, the repression of it is what's not normal...

Bob Rae, Mike Harris and Dalton were wiling to be our bartenders and card dealers, but will the province be our pimp ?

you can't link the province to it, adults make their own decisions on how they want to earn a living, the ruling seperates the state from the affairs of the indivdual...

[charter.rights]

Watch the government cash in....HST on BJ's should produce millions...

[Michael Hardner]

Of course it's the same. Sex is as primal an urge as eating or defecating. Creating these artificial barriers is a mental exercise, not a biological one. Prostitutes even in the English-speaking world were once much more tolerated, and it was really only during periods of puritanical zeal like the days of the Roundheads or the Victorian era (the latter being the source of most of our anti-prostitution laws) that prostitution was ever seen as something that needed to be banned.

Right - so then you can give someone the option of prostitution or NO Employment Insurance then...

It's not the same.

[Michael Hardner]

It IS a prudish hangup. What about those who are forced to work hard manual labour because of a lack of options? They probably get paid way less for using their body for work than does a prostitute.

Let's get it straight - my question is entirely subjective....

Your assessment of the 'hangup' part is apt, I guess. I just don't see it as the same. If I had a daughter, I would not want her to do this for a living. I guess that's a hangup right ?

[Michael Hardner]

Watch the government cash in....HST on BJ's should produce millions...

I don't think I could stand the acronym BJHST to be included in the language, as it makes sex too accounting based, and makes accounting too sexual.

[ToadBrother]

Right - so then you can give someone the option of prostitution or NO Employment Insurance then...

It's not the same.

Why would we do that any more than we would demand that you become a doctor or pig sh*t cleaner? There was precisely one overblown case in Germany a few years ago. No one is going to be forced into prostitution by the government.

[nicky10013]

I don't know if other posters will be able to see this, I have a subscription but I have been able to see this content while not signed in.

Just a few weeks ago The Economist held an online debate on prostitution. Some interesting thoughts on both sides. Though, unfortunately a lot of arguments made by the proponent of criminalising prostitution were fallacious. Not to say I'm for it being illegal, I just think a better person could've made a better argument therefore making the debate more legitimate. Either way, interesting read.

here is the link.

http://www.economist.com/debate/overview/182

[ToadBrother]

Let's get it straight - my question is entirely subjective....

Your assessment of the 'hangup' part is apt, I guess. I just don't see it as the same. If I had a daughter, I would not want her to do this for a living. I guess that's a hangup right ?

I wouldn't want my daughter joining the Army either, particularly with military involvement in Afghanistan. Precious little I can do about it once she hits 18.

[Michael Hardner]

Why would we do that any more than we would demand that you become a doctor or pig sh*t cleaner? There was precisely one overblown case in Germany a few years ago. No one is going to be forced into prostitution by the government.

Poor choice of adjectives in overblown.... sorry but the sophomoric humour won't quit....

[Michael Hardner]

I wouldn't want my daughter joining the Army either, particularly with military involvement in Afghanistan. Precious little I can do about it once she hits 18.

Why wouldn't you want your daughter joining the Army ?

And what are your reasons for not wanting her to enter into this profession.

I suspect that the reasons aren't the same. I don't know what they are, but I suspect that they're aren't the same - for you and me both.

None of my statements here, by the way, are about me objecting to this ruling. I think it's a good ruling, but still I wish there were a way we could collectively think about this other than legal/illegal right now.

[nicky10013]

I'm not sure how this is going to make anyone safe just yet. Just because something is legal doesn't make it safe. You will still have women prostituting themselves for the same reason (a drug habit) and the same creeps using them. The devil will be in the details.

The devil is in the details. There are a couple models. As we all know, the Amsterdam model is to center the activity into one district. Paris also has a red light district, though whether activity in the form of brothels is allowed outside of that area I'm not too sure. Then there's Germany where it's a very decentralized type of system. It's legal, but there isn't a red light district and brothels aren't really advertised, at least that I could see when I was in Berlin last year, though they do exist.

It seems to me that a small district where activity can be controlled and well policed is the best solution. I could very well be wrong, but it seems to me that is the best answer.

Of course it has to be about the safety of women, and that's where the main part of the debate has to rest. However, this decision also has other benefits. If it can be made more safe, localized and commercialised, a red light district could bring in a LOT of tourism as it does in Amsterdam.

[ToadBrother]

Why wouldn't you want your daughter joining the Army ?

And what are your reasons for not wanting her to enter into this profession.

I suspect that the reasons aren't the same. I don't know what they are, but I suspect that they're aren't the same - for you and me both.

None of my statements here, by the way, are about me objecting to this ruling. I think it's a good ruling, but still I wish there were a way we could collectively think about this other than legal/illegal right now.

I don't want my daughter getting shot up. But the real point is that once she hits 18, my objections are purely hypothetical. She is not bound to do what I say. If she falls into prostitution, neither my objections or the laws are going to prevent it. If she is going to be a prostitute, beyond all my objections, I would like it to be in as safe an environment as possible, and historically, that has been a bawdy house.

[Wilber]

The devil is in the details. There are a couple models. As we all know, the Amsterdam model is to center the activity into one district. Paris also has a red light district, though whether activity in the form of brothels is allowed outside of that area I'm not too sure. Then there's Germany where it's a very decentralized type of system. It's legal, but there isn't a red light district and brothels aren't really advertised, at least that I could see when I was in Berlin last year, though they do exist.

It seems to me that a small district where activity can be controlled and well policed is the best solution. I could very well be wrong, but it seems to me that is the best answer.

Of course it has to be about the safety of women, and that's where the main part of the debate has to rest. However, this decision also has other benefits. If it can be made more safe, localized and commercialised, a red light district could bring in a LOT of tourism as it does in Amsterdam.

I'm not saying this is a bad thing, just saying there is a hell of a long way between a judge saying prostitution is not illegal and dancing in the streets crying hookers will now live happily ever after. We'll just have to see.