Canada’s prostitution laws unconstitutional, court rules

[Topaz]

Today, in QP, the justice min. said they are going to fight this in the Supreme court.

[Michael Hardner]

"Doing it on a sidewalk" will always be illegal...

I doubt that.

[M.Dancer]

[Evening Star]

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?

No, the Star clearly states that the prohibitions on #1 and 3 were struck down in this ruling:

Himel found Criminal Code prohibitions against keeping a common bawdy house, living on the avails of prostitution and communicating for the purposes of the trade violated the women’s Charter rights to freedom of expression and security of the person.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/867332--prostitution-laws-struck-down?bn=1

[Evening Star]

Ah, I see RNG has noted this already.

[TimG]

No, the Star clearly states that the prohibitions on #1 and 3 were struck down in this ruling

I bet the pimps and drug dealers are happy. It will also make working as a people smuggler a lot easier. Do people really believe this is good for women?

[Michael Hardner]

Canada's constitution laws unprostitutional...

[RNG]

I bet the pimps and drug dealers are happy. It will also make working as a people smuggler a lot easier. Do people really believe this is good for women?

From the reactions of news sources I visit, it appears to be a real mixed bag.

About the best thing I have seen is a suggestion that any tax revenue collected on this new industry be used to treat hooker's addictions.

But all governments, I am sure will just add it to general revenue and continue wasting it.

[ToadBrother]

I bet the pimps and drug dealers are happy. It will also make working as a people smuggler a lot easier. Do people really believe this is good for women?

How does it make people smuggling easier? Be clear here? It's not as if human smuggling is being legalized, and its not as if the current regime really has the problem under control either.

As to liberties, yes, they suck, because people can make decisions which will harm themselves. Perhaps you would like to ban obese people from buying fattening food, or ban extreme sports, or partaking in unsafe sex.

[TimG]

How does it make people smuggling easier? Be clear here? It's not as if human smuggling is being legalized, and its not as if the current regime really has the problem under control either.

We have many redundant laws on the book which are designed to make it easier to convict people doing crimes. For example, there is no need to have a law against driving over 0.08 blood alcohol because there is another charge for impaired driving. We have the 0.08 law because it is tougher prove impairment. The laws against pimping help catch people smugglers.

As to liberties, yes, they suck, because people can make decisions which will harm themselves. Perhaps you would like to ban obese people from buying fattening food, or ban extreme sports, or partaking in unsafe sex.

Perhaps we should repeal the laws restricting street vendors and tobocco sales? How about the laws restricting gambling and loan sharking? Should those go too?

[Keepitsimple]

Too many judges have tunnel vision when interpreting the Charter of Rights. Naive as I might be, I still hold hope that there are things that our society still value - some sort of "social fabric" that is held together with some degree of community standards. That's what we count on Parliament for - to legislate laws that reflect, on balance, the social fabric that most Canadians would accept as desirable. Unfortunately, we now have judges who are overturning these "societal" laws in favour of the Charter Rights of an individual. But I guess that's what we have the Supreme Court for and hopefully, they will show judgement that reflects the "good of society". We'll see.

Edited September 29, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[ToadBrother]

We have many redundant laws on the book which are designed to make it easier to convict people doing crimes. For example, there is no need to have a law against driving over 0.08 blood alcohol because there is another charge for impaired driving. We have the 0.08 law because it is tougher prove impairment. The laws against pimping help catch people smugglers.

You wouldn't happen to have some statistics on pimping convictions and how they relate to limiting human smuggling, would you?

Perhaps we should repeal the laws restricting street vendors and tobocco sales? How about the laws restricting gambling and loan sharking? Should those go too?

I get confused. Are you being sarcastic again?

[ToadBrother]

Too many judges have tunnel vision when interpreting the Charter of Rights. Naive as I might be, I still hold hope that there are things that our society still value - some sort of "social fabric" that is held together with some degree of community standards. That's what we count on Parliament for - to legislate laws that reflect, on balance, the social fabric that most Canadians would accept as desirable. Unfortunately, we now have judges who are overturning these "societal" laws in favour of the Charter Rights of an individual. But I guess that's what we have the Supreme Court for and hopefully, they will show judgement that reflects the "good of society". We'll see.

Sounds a lot like the arguments against decriminalizing sodomy and gay sex.

[TimG]

I get confused. Are you being sarcastic again?

Yes. I take it you do not support decrimination of gambling and loan sharking then despite the 'nanny-state' aspect. I assume you have some convoluted reason why offering gambling and loan sharking services should be prohibited while offering sex for sale where you want when you want is a constitutional right?

[ToadBrother]

Yes. I take it you do not support decrimination of gambling and loan sharking then despite the 'nanny-state' aspect. I assume you have some convoluted reason why offering gambling and loan sharking services should be prohibited while offering sex for sale where you want when you want is a constitutional right?

First of all, gambling is pretty much legal everywhere, though under the auspices of the provinces.

Beyond that, I'm rather curious as to how you justify equating these three things. Is there some particular reason you lump them together. This strikes me as more than a little fallacious.

Loan sharking and prostitution are not the same thing.

[RNG]

First of all, gambling is pretty much legal everywhere, though under the auspices of the provinces.

Beyond that, I'm rather curious as to how you justify equating these three things. Is there some particular reason you lump them together. This strikes me as more than a little fallacious.

Loan sharking and prostitution are not the same thing.

Playing devil's advocate here, one could argue that they are both government interference into the free choice of individuals. If I am stupid enough to borrow money at 50% a day, I deserve whatever happens to me. If I choose to pay for getting an STD, same thing.

[TimG]

First of all, gambling is pretty much legal everywhere, though under the auspices of the provinces.

I can't sit on the street and set up a a 'gambling' booth nor I can set up my own casino. Why not? Why should someone be entitled to sell sex on the street but not offer gambling services? Why should brothels be allowed but not private casinos?

Beyond that, I'm rather curious as to how you justify equating these three things. Is there some particular reason you lump them together. This strikes me as more than a little fallacious.

If one accepts your rational for ending the restrictions on prostitution then one cannot rationally support restrictions on those activities.

Loan sharking and prostitution are not the same thing.

Sure they are. You have two adults engaging in a consensual agreement. In both cases you have one adult who is likely participating because they have no other choice and, as a result, is being exploited by the other. In both cases, the exploitation which is an intrinsic part of the activity is the justification for the ban. In both cases, the activity happens even with the ban. Edited September 29, 2010 by TimG

[guyser]

I doubt that.

I suppose given enough time to pass....you could be right.

Say 2065 ?

[guyser]

I can't sit on the street and set up a a 'gambling' booth nor I can set up my own casino. Why not? Why should someone be entitled to sell sex on the street but not offer gambling services? Why should brothels be allowed but not private casinos?

You can't sit on the street and set up a bakery either. You could entice someone with some baked goods, ya know, give em a peek, but the transaction cant be done there. Same with sex. The money does not change hands out on the street.

Sure they are. You have two adults engaging in a consensual agreement. In both cases you have one adult who is likely participating because they have no other choice and, as a result, is being exploited by the other. In both cases, the exploitation which is an intrinsic part of the activity is the justification for the ban. In both cases, the activity happens even with the ban.

Lending money is not illegal.

Lending it at rates above some set limit is. However, loan sharking is so minor as to not even register.

[TimG]

You can't sit on the street and set up a bakery either. You could entice someone with some baked goods, ya know, give em a peek, but the transaction cant be done there. Same with sex. The money does not change hands out on the street.

But you can't give out samples of cigs. You can't even put up a sign advertising cigarettes. You also cannot set up a bakery where ever you want. If the city says no you are out of luck. No one has a constitutional right to set up a bakery. Why should they have a right to set up a brothel?

Lending money is not illegal.

Prostitution is not illegal either. Only advertising it is illegal.

[guyser]

No one has a constitutional right to set up a bakery. Why should they have a right to set up a brothel?

Prostitution is not illegal either. Only advertising it is illegal.

On the first part no one has a constitutional right to set up a brothel Not today tomorrow nor yesterday.

About the second part, pick up a NOW magazine and look in the back. Sex is being offered and prices established and has been for years. Not so sure about the advert = illegal

[dre]

Either way... whether this change to the law will make a big difference in the lives of sex workers and help clean up the streets or not... the laws that got struck down didnt serve any usefull purpose. Hopefully attempts to appeal the decision fail.

[Shwa]

Let's not get too serious. The Simpsons didn't:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs0Vr6pnOdU

Edited September 30, 2010 by Shwa

[Pliny]

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

Most never think they have a problem until they are near death. Some make it. Some don't. Most of them are quite wary of "help" and suggestions and try to avoid it unless it involves giving them some cash.

[RNG]

Most never think they have a problem until they are near death. Some make it. Some don't. Most of them are quite wary of "help" and suggestions and try to avoid it unless it involves giving them some cash.

But the Portugal example with drug laws shows that with the decrease of stigma due to the decriminalization, more will access treatment.