Canada’s prostitution laws unconstitutional, court rules

[Mr.Canada]

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.

Why personally attack me? I guess we've reached the limit of your intellectual prowess.

Man pays whore for sex, man ejaculates, man leaves. Man treats whore as plumbing, a receptacle for his seed, nothing more.

So a man who pays for a blow job or a quickie in the alley is craving physical intimacy ion some deep caring sort of way?

You cannot afford to be this naive. You need to get out more. Go walk around where whores ply their trade and tell me what you see. Many women who turn tricks are drug addicts and turn tricks for that next hit of crack.

[eyeball]

I am not against legalizing prostitution, however, anyone that thinks this will stop people like Pickton or get the $10 Downtown East-side crack-addicted prostitute into a clean and tidy brothel is completely foolng themselves.

It will make it safer for some. Which is good. But don't over-state what this will do....

Presumably our dope laws will one day go the way of our prostitution laws, for the same reason, and the chances of treating crack addicts and steering them towards other lines of work will go up.

[Pliny]

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.

Will the taxation from the practice pay for those "yet more bureaucrats" and increased costs to health care insurance?

Of course not.

I agree with you, it will be a further burden on the taxpayer.

Why won't it pay for itself? It is mostly a cash only business with no overhead and creative accounting can easily be employed.

From a purely economic point of view, prostitution doesn't increase the GDP any.

As for the "ick" factor, what does it do to personal relationships? Could anything like "love"(in the non-sexual sense) be established? Would someone proudly introduce it as their wife's profession?

Morally, someone said that prostitutes were no longer human and someone said they were still human.

Well, I think there are certain things you have to ignore about yourself when you are a prostitute, and one is your feelings. You have to turn them off. It is a bit dehumanizing to be just a piece of meat. John's would actually expect that from prostitutes and so they treat prostitutes that way.

So could the "ick" factor be ignoring "feelings"? This ignoring feelings may extend to other areas of their lives as well and perhaps leads to drug addiction so those feelings stay buried.

I think it true that any woman or man could be a prostitute if they wanted to be but for some reason most choose not to be. They would also not like to see their own daughters, sisters, wives and mothers make that choice. Why? Someone they don't know could be a prostitute though and they think that should be their choice and really the problem is Victorian prudes and religious zealots. But if they knew the prostitute they would feel bad about their choice as though there really is something wrong with it.

Maybe because it isn't safe, it is a risky profession. Why would that be?

[Pliny]

Presumably our dope laws will one day go the way of our prostitution laws, for the same reason, and the chances of treating crack addicts and steering them towards other lines of work will go up.

Seems you don't like to judge but you like to treat and steer?

[guyser]

Yeah, the judge made that point. But the judge doesn't have that power. The Crown will seek a stay and get it. Until an appeals court rules this ruling will have no effect.

Actually no.

Certainly she has the power as witnessed by her ruling.

The Crown has 30 days to appeal and to convince her why she should overturn the ruling. The Crown tried to get an 18 month stay, for ridiculous reasoning and she flat out rejected it.

If after 30 days the Crown does not convince Justice Susan Himel to amend her ruling, then it stays.

Edited September 29, 2010 by guyser

[ToadBrother]

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

All I can say on this or any other debate is that I wouldn't seek you out looking for enlightenment.

[GostHacked]

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.

Welcome to the service industry. Customers don't really give a crap about the Mikey D's drive through attendant either. Not to mention we all 'whore' ourselves out in some fashion or another. Judging by many of the threads you have started so far, you seem to have some issue with sex or sexual and intimate relationships yourself.

Legalize it and be done with it. The women and men who want to be prostitutes should be allowed to work in a safe environment. If we keep sending them to the back alley, what kind of message do we send them? We send the message we don't give a crap. Which is the wrong way to approach the situation. Legalize it, regulate it.

We already have many places that offer some kind of whoring out in one way or another. Peeler bars and peep shows, the VIP or 'Champagne Room'. Skin mags, porn movies. 'Escort services' and call girls. All this is whoriffic in one way or another.

Bring the girls from the back alley to a safe place to practice the oldest profession in the world in a safe clean environment.

[eyeball]

Seems you don't like to judge but you like to treat and steer?

If addicts choose to be treated and are open to suggestions, sure why not?

[Mr.Canada]

Welcome to the service industry. Customers don't really give a crap about the Mikey D's drive through attendant either. Not to mention we all 'whore' ourselves out in some fashion or another. Judging by many of the threads you have started so far, you seem to have some issue with sex or sexual and intimate relationships yourself.

Legalize it and be done with it. The women and men who want to be prostitutes should be allowed to work in a safe environment. If we keep sending them to the back alley, what kind of message do we send them? We send the message we don't give a crap. Which is the wrong way to approach the situation. Legalize it, regulate it.

We already have many places that offer some kind of whoring out in one way or another. Peeler bars and peep shows, the VIP or 'Champagne Room'. Skin mags, porn movies. 'Escort services' and call girls. All this is whoriffic in one way or another.

Bring the girls from the back alley to a safe place to practice the oldest profession in the world in a safe clean environment.

Organized crime will be controlling those "safe environments" with more ease then they do now.

Organized crime already controls the Strip clubs and massage parlors. 1% motorcycle clubs now control the vast majority of those ventures. This will only grow with legalized brothels.

As I said earlier I don't really care one way or the other on this as long as it gets the whore off of city streets I'm all in favor of it. Zone it similar to strip clubs.

Make the whores buy a business license like any other vendor out there. Use that money to pay for the program and to pay the salary of whomever is in charge of it.

Edited September 29, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[GostHacked]

Organized crime will be controlling those "safe environments" with more ease then they do now.

Organized crime already controls the Strip clubs and massage parlors. 1% motorcycle clubs now control the vast majority of those ventures. This will only grow with legalized brothels.

As I said earlier I don't really care one way or the other on this as long as it gets whore of city streets I'm all in favor of it. Zone it similar to strip clubs.

Make the whores buy a business license like any other vendor out there. Use that money to pay for the program and to pay the salary of whomever is in charge of it.

So in the end you are for legalizing prostitution and providing them with a safe clean working environment (aka getting them off the streets). Damn, you might have a heart after all!

[Mr.Canada]

So in the end you are for legalizing prostitution and providing them with a safe clean working environment (aka getting them off the streets). Damn, you might have a heart after all!

Sure, why not. Just like gambling. People are going to do no matter what so might as well make some money off of it through tax revenue.

I just don't like people trying to pretend to not see things that are already there. I;'d like some of this new tax revenue to be put towards getting hookers off drugs etc.

Also I hope these new brothels don't become crack houses as many hookers are drug addicted. That's not the image that the MSM likes to show but that is reality.

Edited September 29, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[Mr.Canada]

NT

Edited September 29, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[Mr.Canada]

nt

Edited September 29, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[ToadBrother]

Sure, why not. Just like gambling. People are going to do no matter what so might as well make some money off of it through tax revenue.

I just don't like people trying to pretend to not see things that are already there. I;'d like some of this new tax revenue to be put towards getting hookers off drugs etc.

Also I hope these new brothels don't become crack houses as many hookers are drug addicted. That's not the image that the MSM likes to show but that is reality.

A very sensible post. Every once in a while you truly surprise me.

To my mind, the precise point is that the current system does not work. Criminalizing prostitutes and their clients has not stopped prostitution. 150 years of Victorian-styled anti-prostitution legislation has not solved the problem. It's quite possible that nothing can solve the problem of marginalized women ending up in these circumstances, but maybe even if we could redirect the policing costs towards rehab, counseling, safe houses (bawdy or otherwise), then I'd say we've gone some distance.

We've tried banning the other main vices; drink and gambling, and both have been failures. Instead we've basically acknowledged the reality and the government has simply taken them over, at least guaranteeing some benefit to society. Prostitution will be next, I think.

[TimG]

Criminalizing prostitutes and their clients has not stopped prostitution.

Would be please stop repeating the nonsense that prostitution is criminalized in Canada. It is not. It is perfectly legal to sell sex.

What is not legal are:

1) Soliciting clients in a public place;

2) Having sex in a public place;

3) Living off the avails of prostitution (pimping);

4) Running an establishment where sex is sold;

http://www.torontocriminaldefence.com/articles/EEAFZllkEEfGCBJCfp.php

I assume that you have no issue with keeping 1-3 criminalized. What is at issue in this court case is 4). This is purely a question of business regulation and not allowing a particular type of business to operate is simply an extreme form of zoning rules. I assume you have no problem with cities deciding whether they want to allow walmart to set up shop. Is this any different?

Edited September 29, 2010 by TimG

[ToadBrother]

Would be please stop repeating the nonsense that prostitution is criminalized in Canada. It is not. It is perfectly legal to sell sex.

What is not legal are:

1) Soliciting clients in a public place;

2) Having sex in a public place;

3) Living off the avails of prostitution (pimping);

4) Running an establishment where sex is sold;

http://www.torontocriminaldefence.com/articles/EEAFZllkEEfGCBJCfp.php

I assume that you have no issue with keeping 1-3 criminalized. What is at issue in this court case is 4). This is purely a question of business regulation and not allowing a particular type of business to operate is simply an extreme form of zoning rules.

Since all four have been historically used to stop prostitution, I see no way at the moment that one could legally be a prostitute in this country.

[TimG]

Since all four have been historically used to stop prostitution, I see no way at the moment that one could legally be a prostitute in this country.

Open the yellow pages. Look up 'escort'. Legal prostitution has been going on for years.

[ToadBrother]

Open the yellow pages. Look up 'escort'. Legal prostitution has been going on for years.

You'll notice that these adds don't exactly mention that sex is on the menu. We all know nudge-nudge-wink-wink that escorts are, by and large, prostitutes, but I wouldn't recommend any escort put in the ad "Will have sex for money". Since many, if not most, escorts work out of agencies, the operators can be charged for operating a bawdy house.

Edited September 29, 2010 by ToadBrother

[TimG]

You'll notice that these adds don't exactly mention that sex is on the menu.

So? Does the fact that tobacco companies cannot advertise what they sell mean there is no legal way to sell tobacco in the country? How about pharmaceutical drugs? You can't advertise those either. Does that mean there is no legal way to sell them?

Are you really arguing for constitution right the advertise whatever you want where ever you want?

The agencies cannot be charged with running a bawdy house unless sex takes place on the premises. Maybe they could be charged with 'living off the avails' but I don't know enough about how that law distinguishes between the 'pimp' and the 'prostitute' who both 'live off the avails'. I suspect the agnecies structure themselves in ways to ensure they cannot fall afoul of those laws.

Edited September 29, 2010 by TimG

[RNG]

According to both CTV and CBC, the judge struck down the communicating part, the pimping part and the bawdy house part. I guess doing it on the sidewalk is still illegal.

[guyser]

"... doing it on the sidewalk is still illegal."

"Doing it on a sidewalk" will always be illegal, much to Mr Canada and his film making dismay . I think he was getting tired of gay porn

Edited September 29, 2010 by guyser

[TimG]

"Doing it on a sidewalk" will always be illegal

Why? How is anyone hurt if two consenting adults want to have sex on the sidewalk? Surely this is a horrible violation of their constitutional rights that should be rectified by the court.

[ToadBrother]

Why? How is anyone hurt if two consenting adults want to have sex on the sidewalk? Surely this is a horrible violation of their constitutional rights that should be rectified by the court.

Obscenity laws usually don't traverse issues of rights providing they're not overbroad. You can't ban the selling of adult magazines, but you certainly can create regulations stipulating how they may be displayed.

Is there some reason you're trying to make an extreme argument here?

[guyser]

TimG

What he ^ said....

[TimG]

Is there some reason you're trying to make an extreme argument here?

I was being sarcastic. My point is community standards are arbitrary and it rather silly to defend the court judgement by telling critics they have no right to impose "community standards". We impose "community standards" all of the time and there is nothing wrong with it. The only real question is have they changed enough to allow people to accept brothels. I don't think they have. Edited September 29, 2010 by TimG