Canada’s prostitution laws unconstitutional, court rules

[TimG]

Nice try. I'm not the person who made the specific claim.

You are the one who demanded evidence from me. No comment on the NYT article?

[ToadBrother]

You completely missed my point. I think that most women who work in the sex trade would refuse to work under the terms that would be required for any legal business operation because they are desperate for money. This means legalizing brothels would not actually solve the stated problem if the existing taxation laws are enforced. That is why the 'legalize it for humanitarian reasons' argument is not as compelling as you might think.

Let's look at this the other way. What will maintaining it as illegal accomplish? And do you think the government should be telling people what they can do with their bodies? Was it right to end adultery laws? Was it right to decriminalize homosexuality?

Whether it helps women or not, it's hard to see how the current regime in fact is any better. Beyond that, there is an issue of civil liberties here.

Edited September 28, 2010 by ToadBrother

[RNG]

Question: how many of these working girls would be willing to report their income and collect the HST? I am guessing very few. If we make it legal we have to enforce these laws which would simply drive it underground again. I certainly have no interest in legalizing a business that is allowed to operate 'tax free' for humanitarian reasons.

Due to some complex business associations, I once met a madam and had a fascinating conversation with her. She told me she declared her income as self-employed and paid her income tax and all was cool. She figured that she had too much money in the bank and would be at risk of an audit if she didn't. You of course know that the CRA says exactly that. Declare your income, we will not prosecute you or sic the law on you.

My brother-in-law retired from the Air Force at the age of 45, and joined Revenue Canada, as it was then. Ex-military had preference to be hired by the fed at the time. He articled as CPA, and his first task was to audit the best hotel in Winnipeg. He found out that the hotel accountant was stealing about 1/3 of the tips left on credit card payments for himself. But he also found out that the ass did report it as income. My BOL wanted like hell to get him busted but the bosses wouldn't let him.

So I think at least some of the non-total druggie types might pay their taxes.

Besides, municipalities would be in their rights to insist on a license to practice, so more monitoring.

[TimG]

Let's look at this the other way. What will maintaining it as illegal accomplish? And do you think the government should be telling people what they can do with their bodies? Was it right to end adultery laws? Was it right to decriminalize homosexuality?

I actually see no difference between a high end escort who accepts cash in a hotel room and someone who goes home with a stranger met in a bar (statement is gender neutral). In both cases you have adults making choices that they are entitled to make. But we are not talking about legislating individual choices. We are talking about allowing a business to operate and under what terms. It is not a question of civil liberties unless you want to argue that all government regulation and zoning laws are violations of civil liberties.

[TimG]

So I think at least some of the non-total druggie types might pay their taxes.

I agree. But those types of prostitutes are not the ones who are at risk and would not really benefit from legalization of brothels. Edited September 28, 2010 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

That my daughter might become a prostitute horrifies me. But there's a point at which her personal decisions, no matter how uncomfortable they make me feel, are no longer decisions I have any power over. It's no different than marrying an abusive man. That's potentially just as wrong, and yet in most jurisdictions, once you hit the age of majority, there's nothing to be done but make your objections known. That's the essential nature of adulthood.

Just to point out, the question isn't really if it should be illegal or legal anymore. It's legal now. We ned to talk about that "ick" factor.

[Evening Star]

While I basically agree with ToadBrother and Nicky, I do think it's worth considering some of the issues raised in TimG's NYT article. From what I've heard, there is a serious problem with human trafficking in the Dutch prostitution industry. I'm not saying that the current regime is helping things but how would (or could) we avoid those problems? I can easily see e.g. Windsor (where I live) becoming a prostitution Mecca for American tourists (just as it did in the areas of gambling and strip clubs). This isn't necessarily a bad thing in and of itself as long as it doesn't also mean major increases in crime (the kind with victims) and exploitation.

[Mr.Canada]

This doesn't effect my life one way or another as I don't use whores nor live in areas where they ply their trade on the streets.

I hope that they clean it up. As making it illegal to be hooking on street corners. They'll be able to hire body guards for security.

I hope they make red light districts as they have in Germany and Denmark. Keep it in one area of the cities and get it off the streets. Test the whores regularly for STD's and legislate them to buy licenses from the municipality and use the money from licensing to pay for expenses of running such a program so it doesn't cot the taxpayers anything.

I don't believe it will stop organized crime from being involved though as some claim. Organized crime will buy up storefronts and stockpile their whores inside their imo. Whore houses, bordellos, brothels or whatever they end up calling them.

Well as it is now there is a 30 day hold on the decision so I think many people will wait and see how this will be done.

If it with free reign with crack whores all over the place, in front of schools, churches and daycare centres, then I cannot see many people supporting it. However if they have rules and bylaws concerning it then I see more people supporting it.

At the end of the day the courts will do whatever they want and the vast majority of us have no say about anything whatsoever. As long we shut up and keep paying our ever rising taxes all is well.

Edited September 29, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[Evening Star]

It will be hard to set up regulations within 30 days.

[M.Dancer]

If they deregulate, will prices rise?

[ToadBrother]

At the end of the day the courts will do whatever they want and the vast majority of us have no say about anything whatsoever. As long we shut up and keep paying our ever rising taxes all is well.

Just like the majority can't tell two men or two women not to have sex together. We don't live in a mobocracy, you're right to throw a punch ends at my nose.

[dre]

You completely missed my point. I think that most women who work in the sex trade would refuse to work under the terms that would be required for any legal business operation because they are desperate for money. This means legalizing brothels would not actually solve the stated problem if the existing taxation laws are enforced. That is why the 'legalize it for humanitarian reasons' argument is not as compelling as you might think.

I think that most women who work in the sex trade would refuse to work under the terms that would be required for any legal business operation because they are desperate for money.

Seems like a total assumption to me. Many of these women get arrested 20 or 30 times a year, are beaten, raped, robbed, killed, forced into arrangments with pimps and gangs where they only get a small fraction of the money they earn... and your assumption is they would rather subject themselves to all that stuff than pay a little bit of taxes which they could partially avoid anyhow with a little creative paperwork like most other businesses do.

But even IF it was true its still not a reason for us to keep an expensive failed policy that doesnt work.

[msdogfood]

From the Star:

Canada’s prostitution laws unconstitutional, court rules

Could this result in an Amsterdamnation of Canada?

Edit: CC section on Bawdy Houses

Yes this will get very interesting!.

[Peter F]

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

It's not the same.

That is not how EI works. No one need take a job for which they are not qualified. Or for which they have to move somewhere else. Or for which the pay is considerably less than what the person has been making. Or for a job the person finds morally reprehensible. etc etc.

No one is required to take a job at the slaughter-house simply because there's jobs available at the slaughter-house.

No one is required to become a priest simply because there's a shortage of priests

Course, once the EI runs out...

Edited September 29, 2010 by Peter F

[bloodyminded]

yup...I recall after the 14 women were slaughtered by Marc Lepine there was candle light walk by women in sympathy for those victims in my home town, men weren't welcome...coincidently at the same time there was a serial killer on the loose in that same city killing prostitutes and the march organizers made no mention of those victims...they just didn't matter...

Right....

I wouldn't want my daughers in it either but if they made that choice I'd want them to be as safe as possible, they're still my kids regardless of their lifestyle...

And right again. No question.

[TimG]

Seems like a total assumption to me. Many of these women get arrested 20 or 30 times a year, are beaten, raped, robbed, killed, forced into arrangments with pimps and gangs where they only get a small fraction of the money they earn.

I linked to an NYT article on the Dutch experience. Legalization of brothels has not done much to help women at risk.

Seems and your assumption is they would rather subject themselves to all that stuff than pay a little bit of taxes which they could partially avoid anyhow with a little creative paperwork like most other businesses do.

From the NYT article:

One of the women who has worked here for about 10 years said that some of the prostitutes simply left the business because they did not want to lose their anonymity by registering with the police and paying taxes.

Others, she said, were still selling sex, but in a more dangerous way. They advertise in local magazines and meet their customers in hotel rooms. To do this, most rely on a pimp for protection.

It appears anonymity is also a big problem for women and their customers.

But even IF it was true its still not a reason for us to keep an expensive failed policy that doesnt work.

What policy? Accepting money for sex is legal. What you can't do is set up a business that advertises sex for sale. It is really no different from laws that ban tobacco advertising. Should we get rid of those because the black market for tobacco exists?

Allowing brothels will not save any money nor will it help the women most at risk. All it will do is cost more money because yet more bureaucrats will have to be employeed regulating and monitoring these places. If you really want to use money as an argument it would be cheaper to keep the status quo.

Edited September 29, 2010 by TimG

[bloodyminded]

I linked to an NYT article on the Dutch experience. Legalization of brothels has not done much to help women at risk.

From the NYT article:

It appears anonymity is also a big problem for women and their customers.

What policy? Accepting money for sex is legal. What you can't do is set up a business that advertises sex for sale. It is really no different from laws that ban tobacco advertising. Should we get rid of those because the black market for tobacco exists?

Allowing brothels will not save any money nor will it help the women most at risk. All it will do is cost more money because yet more bureaucrats will have to be employeed regulating and monitoring these places. If you really want to use money as an argument it would be cheaper to keep the status quo.

But according to the link you posted (which is not clearly "data," as you introduced it) the prostitution advocates themselves, while clearly concerned about problems that have arisen, feel it a matter of growing pains; many of these concerns might have means to be sorted out.

The problem is complex, but there is little in the linked article that points to "legalization of brothels has not done much to help women at risk," as you say: the overwhelming emphasis of concern in the piece is of unneccessary bureacracy and of lost business.

And, too, there is the matter of making something illegal based, at bottom, on religious moral concerns--a somewhat separate issue, but a serious one.

[TimG]

And, too, there is the matter of making something illegal based, at bottom, on religious moral concerns--a somewhat separate issue, but a serious one.

Let's depense with the false rhetoric. This is not about making prosititution legal - it already is. It is about allowing businesses to operate that advertise sex for sale. We restrict businesses all of the time for a variety of reasons. In many times, the justification comes down to a question of social values (i.e. tobacco, guns, private medical services, gambling, et. al.); If you want to argue that the moral views of the majority of people are not sufficient to justify restricting a business operation then you are arguing against the laws that restrict the sale of tobacco, guns and medical services.

As for the 'too much regulation' argument - all businesses complain about regulation. The trouble with prostitution is we are talking about an extremely risky activity and that requires some level of regulation. There is also the issue of civil liability. Businesses require insurance to operate. A brothel that did not follow some pretty riguous guidelines would have trouble getting insurance. The fact is a drug addicted streetwalker who can barely function is not going to be able to follow these regulations and can't be helped by legalization. The only women who might be helped are the ones that currently operate via the yellow pages but it is not clear that they need that much help.

Edited September 29, 2010 by TimG

[charter.rights]

Let's depense with the false rhetoric. This is not about making prosititution legal - it already is. It is about allowing businesses to operate that advertise sex for sale. We restrict businesses all of the time for a variety of reasons. In many times, the justification comes down to a question of social values (i.e. tobacco, guns, private medical services, gambling, et. al.); If you want to argue that the moral views of the majority of people are not sufficient to justify restricting a business operation then you are arguing against the laws that restrict the sale of tobacco, guns and medical services.

Perhaps now that Charter challenges are turning old laws on their heads we will find guns, tobacco and medical service restrictions lifted as well. In a free and just society, only reasonable limits will be tolerated. The limits that were placed on prostitution were unreasonable. Are limits on tobacco and gun possession just as unreasonable? That would be a question to be put before the courts IF someone has the balls to pursue it.

[Mr.Canada]

The women that choose to be whore are essentially turning themselves into objects. They are no longer human beings with feelings but are instead just receptacles for men. They're just plumbing, nothing more. Why women(or men) would choose to turn themselves into just plumbing is beyond me.

Are we going to have whores visiting schools on career day telling young girls that being a whore is a worthwhile industry to get into if they don't want to go to college?

Organized crime already controls the club scene as well as the adult entertainment industry. Anyone who opens a normal dance club in downtown Toronto will get a visit from either the Russian or Italian mob, for the most part, forcing them to pay up each week or close the club.

Same goes for Strip clubs, they are run by the 1% motorcycle clubs and have been for decades.

Same will happen with this. If someone thinks they'll be able to open a brothel without being muscled for payment(extorted) is being incredibly naive. It's just another racket that can and will be extorted by organized crime.

Edited September 29, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[bloodyminded]

The women that choose to be whore are essentially turning themselves into objects. They are no longer human beings with feelings but are instead just receptacles for men. They're just plumbing, nothing more. Why women(or men) would choose to turn themselves into just plumbing is beyond me.

???

No. They're still human beings, and with feelings.

You're mistaking your perception of them for their reality.

[Mr.Canada]

???

No. They're still human beings, and with feelings.

You're mistaking your perception of them for their reality.

Oh really. So the johns that seek out sex with whores care about the womens feelings? The johns aren't objectifying at all right?

The johns sit down and have a conversation with them for to find out about them?

You're very naive.

The johns want to get their rocks off, nothing more. The choose a whore on their appearance. Pay them. Get their rocks off then leave.

They treat them as just plumbing, nothing more.

You cannot afford to be this naive is this day and age.

[bloodyminded]

Oh really. So the johns that seek out sex with whores care about the womens feelings? The johns aren't objectifying at all right?

The johns sit down and have a conversation with them for to find out about them?

You're very naive.

The johns want to get their rocks off, nothing more. The choose a whore on their appearance. Pay them. Get their rocks off then leave.

They treat them as just plumbing, nothing more.

You cannot afford to be this naive is this day and age.

I'm not talking about the johns--though their reasons for seeking out prostitutes varies somewhat more than you seem to think (talk about naive!), and it isn't always about some emotion-free wish to get their rocks off.

But I was responding to your claim--which maybe wasn't what you meant, but it was what you said: that the prostitutes objectively become nothing more than plumbing, and "are no longer human beings with feelings." I was only saying that although some people may perceive them this way, that doesn't make it objectively the case.

Not a naive notion, and not even a strange nor controversial one.

[Mr.Canada]

NT

Edited September 29, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[bloodyminded]

Well you seem to be a man of experience. So what other reasons do people pay to have sex with prostitutes other then the obvious? What reasons have you used to rationalize your paying hookers for sex?

I understand you're being a cowardly little douchebag, but I'll respond anyway for the sake of your education.

First, I have never visited a prostitute.

Second, despite the opinions of you hardcore, "the world is black 'n white" reactionaries, human beings are emotionally and psychologically complex creatures. Men don't only hunt for sex like predators, but also crave physical intimacy, in ways that aren't so easily relegated to "using women like plumbing."

Perhaps you should lay off the humiliation porn. And understand that not everyone has as dank and dark a view of human beings as you do.