Canada’s prostitution laws unconstitutional, court rules

[Pliny]

If they deregulate, will prices rise?

If prices rise supply will increase and bring them back down to market level. Pornography (and/or viagra) will, in such case, have to increase to drive up demand.....and the market will go up and down until such time as the supply is exhausted and/or demand is flaccid.

[RNG]

If prices rise supply will increase and bring them back down to market level. Pornography (and/or viagra) will, in such case, have to increase to drive up demand.....and the market will go up and down until such time as the supply is exhausted and/or demand is flaccid.

Doesn't the flaccid demand spur Viagra sales?

That had to be an intentional pun, and I appreciated it enough to acknowledge it.

Edited September 30, 2010 by RNG

[Pliny]

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

Treatment? Is there something wrong?

Seriously, most will come to realize the treatment is worse than the disease. Most liberals will defend the persons right to do whatever they want and are most happy to intervene to "help" later. Makes them feel good helping out those less fortunates whom they granted such liberty earlier. Sort of puts them a cut above the rest.

I think a Libertarian would probably warn of the problems instead of minimizing any of the negativities one may encounter, as Liberals so caringly aware of human rights do, and then if one makes a wrong choice they have pretty much made their own bed.

I wouldn't deny someone offering a warm meal or pillow. Perhaps when the medical establishment learns something about addiction and isn't just offering something for sale, real help can be established. They should start with reading Allan Carr's "Easy Way to quit Smoking".

Edited September 30, 2010 by Pliny

[RNG]

Treatment? Is there something wrong?

Seriously, most will come to realize the treatment is worse than the disease. Most liberals will defend the persons right to do whatever they want and are most happy to intervene to "help" later. Makes them feel good helping out those less fortunates whom they granted such liberty earlier. Sort of puts them a cut above the rest.

I think Libertarian would probably warn of the problems instead of minmize them and then iof one makes a wrong choice they have pretty much made their own bed.

I was referencing the fact that many posters were stating that many hookers hook because of a drug addiction.

(Happy 100th post to me.)

[Pliny]

Doesn't the flaccid demand spur Viagra sales?

That had to be an intentional pun, and I appreciated it enough to acknowledge it.

Got a rise out of you, did it?

[Pliny]

I was referencing the fact that many posters were stating that many hookers hook because of a drug addiction.

(Happy 100th post to me.)

You were too quick for my edit on the post.

Our city Mayor was on the air this morning saying that only 8% of prostitutes have a drug addiction problem. Don't know if that is true.

Happy 100th!

[August1991]

This is an interesting court decision to say the least. I suppose the debate is welcome.

I frankly think that we will eventually adopt a Swedish solution in Canada. In Sweden, it is the customers who are charged, not the prostitutes. IOW, we will make it illegal to hire a prostitute while prostitution itself will not be criminalized. Indeed, we will assist prostitutes to leave the occupation.

BTW, since Holland is noted elsewhere in this thread, I'll add that Amsterdam (for example) has restricted its red light district over the past few years. I think that this is because of Sweden.

-----

I flipped through this thread quickly. Some thoughts.

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.

Marijuana is not like prostitution. DrG, is heroin the same as marijuana? Is a tactical nuclear weapon the same as a long gun?

But I agree that there are some similarities. People can get addicted to marijuana, gambling, alcohol, stamp collecting, heroin and - thinking of Tiger Woods - sex.

As a society, I think that we should deal with some addictive products differently from other products.

No, that would be FORCING someone to do it which is entirely different. THAT would be pimping, hell that is almost third party rape. You can't coerce someone into giving sexual consent.

The key word is coercing.

Your daughter comes home and says: Dad, I have two offers: Burger King or Madame Sasha's Parlor of delights. Which should I take ?

Do you care which one she takes, assuming safety is the same ?

But what if you are dead and your daughter is impoverished? (See below.)

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.

I have to agree GostHacked, life is a series of choices - and some of the A/B choices are not so great. Some may be appalled that people sell their "honour" at all, but we live in a universe where choice is a fact of life. Michael H, you have framed the choice in a facile manner: Burger King or prostitution. But choices in life are not like that.

Who am I to judge the choices of another?

-----

My libertarian innerself is inclined to say that we should live and let live. If some women choose to be prostitutes, and some men choose to hire them, and both are adults, then they should be free to do so.

At the same time, I understand the argument that too many young women are coerced into prostitution. This happens for many reasons (absent father, for example) but however one explains it, it amounts to coercion. In a sense, these women sell themselves too cheap. They should ask a higher price.

Finally, looking at this from a political side, I suspect Canada will adopt the Swedish model. Like Swedes, most English Canadians are (Lutheran) Protestants. For Protestants (women in particular), there is a prudish correctness to such questions. In addition, the Swedish solution is practical - and Canadians (French, English or other) like practicality.

But the killer is that most Canadian Protestants (and Catholics) are no longer religious: their new religion is political correctness. And the Swedish model is politically correct.

Edited September 30, 2010 by August1991

[eyeball]

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.

But this ruling reflects the one of the most fundamental threads of our social fabric, liberalism.

[eyeball]

No one has a constitutional right to set up a bakery.

Of course they do, they may have to comply with local zoning and health regulations etc, but everyone clearly has the right to get all the necessary ducks in a row and start up a business.

Why should they have a right to set up a brothel?

A supreme court has just ruled they do for starters.

[dre]

Why should they have a right to set up a brothel?

This question is not relevant. This ruling is about provincial and federal government rights, not prostitutes rights.

A supreme court has just ruled they do for starters.

No, what they ruled was that the government did not have the right to regulate prostitution using those particular pieces of legislation. Thats all.

Edited September 30, 2010 by dre

[wyly]

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

I'd assume that without fear of being arrested addicts feel safe to come out for treatment...

[eyeball]

This question is not relevant. This ruling is about provincial and federal government rights, not prostitutes rights.

I doubt very much that's how the winners of this ruling see it.

No, what they ruled was that the government did not have the right to regulate prostitution using those particular pieces of legislation. Thats all.

Okay so they will have the right to get their ducks in a row once the government get's theirs together, presumably in the next 30 days.

Things are kind of in a chicken and egg limbo at the moment or duck and egg as the case may be, but whatever that may be there can be no doubt this is definitely not about upholding or establishing government rights.

[TimG]

I doubt very much that's how the winners of this ruling see it.

Which is my entire point. The court has no business telling cities what businesses are allowed to operate and where.

[wyly]

I doubt very much that's how the winners of this ruling see it.

Okay so they will have the right to get their ducks in a row once the government get's theirs together, presumably in the next 30 days.

Things are kind of in a chicken and egg limbo at the moment or duck and egg as the case may be, but whatever that may be there can be no doubt this is definitely not about upholding or establishing government rights.

it'll be interesting to see the direction the politcal parties take...if the conservatives get all moral and religious it could play to the oppositions advantage...

[wyly]

Which is my entire point. The court has no business telling cities what businesses are allowed to operate and where.

but what right do municipal authorities have to decide what is a business and what is not?...the courts rule on law not the municipalities...

[eyeball]

Which is my entire point. The court has no business telling cities what businesses are allowed to operate and where.

I bet it does if the city has no justifiable legal reason to deny someone the right to start up a business. Heck, we have trade rules that allow corporations to sue governments for doing just that very thing.

I suspect the courts would give the city some latitude in saying where certain business' could be set up but should the city drag its heels for too long sooner or later it would be held in contempt.

Edited September 30, 2010 by eyeball

[eyeball]

it'll be interesting to see the direction the politcal parties take...if the conservatives get all moral and religious it could play to the oppositions advantage...

Just wait until some Conservative is caught getting spanked by Terri-Jean Bedford.

[RNG]

Just wait until some Conservative is caught getting spanked by Terri-Jean Bedford.

I have been on a US based political message board for about 3 years. It is very interesting to me that a whole bunch of Dems have been caught playing hide the wienie with some other woman, but a whole bunch of Reps have been caught playing hide the wienie with some guy. Is there a message here?

Edited September 30, 2010 by RNG

[August1991]

Just wait until some Conservative is caught getting spanked by Terri-Jean Bedford.

I think that's the point of the Swedish approach: arrest the John, not the prostitute. Criminalize the purchase of sex services but not their sale.

[RNG]

I think that's the point of the Swedish approach: arrest the John, not the prostitute. Criminalize the purchase of sex services but not their sale.

I really don't understand your stance here. Some woman wants to get some money by letting a guy jump her bones. Some guy wants to get his rocks off in an uncomplicated manner. What's wrong with that assuming she isn't a sex-slave. And if it's legalized, the odds of that being the case drops dramatically.

[August1991]

I really don't understand your stance here. Some woman wants to get some money by letting a guy jump her bones. Some guy wants to get his rocks off in an uncomplicated manner. What's wrong with that assuming she isn't a sex-slave. And if it's legalized, the odds of that being the case drops dramatically.

It ain't so simple, RNG.

Read my post above in this thread - or google: Sweden sex purchase law.

Edited September 30, 2010 by August1991

[RNG]

It ain't so simple, RNG.

Read my post above in this thread - or google: Sweden sex purchase law.

I did read it, and I disagree. I'm not in favor of prostitution. If my daughter was a prostitute I'd wail and moan and really be a bad bastard. But I also believe in personal freedoms, including the freedom to do things that a bunch of us don't like. As long as you aren't hurting another person, git it on!

[charter.rights]

I bet it does if the city has no justifiable legal reason to deny someone the right to start up a business. Heck, we have trade rules that allow corporations to sue governments for doing just that very thing.

I suspect the courts would give the city some latitude in saying where certain business' could be set up but should the city drag its heels for too long sooner or later it would be held in contempt.

Cities have the authority to regulate uses of land through zoning by-laws and through site plan approval process. They could limit time of day, location and require period health and safety inspections.

In Ontario in the last 10 years municipalities have been on a rampage regulating strip clubs. While they cannot interfere with the business per se, and always need to be fair and reasonable, or appeals could be made, taking that authority out of their hands. Where we live the strip clubs got relegated to industrial zones. What an exciting way to go see women strip....right next to the pork rendering plant....

[TimG]

Cities have the authority to regulate uses of land through zoning by-laws and through site plan approval process. They could limit time of day, location and require period health and safety inspections.

Cities can ban some types of businesses entirely. No business has a right to demand that the city allow them to operate (just ask WalMart who has been banned from many cities/towns). There is no such thing as a right to run a business wherever you want.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/police-communities-struggle-to-grasp-prostitution-ruling/article1733812/

Here is a good quote to illustrate why this ruling will do nothing to help women:

“One of first things they will try to do is force us against our will to identify ourselves and provide information about who we are, where we reside and where we work,” said Amber, a 36-year-old Toronto sex worker. “There is absolutely no way I am prepared to be on any kind of public registry.

Identification and registration are non-negotiable. Any legal regime that allows them to operate in public places will require this and the woman quoted is deluding herself if she thinks she can avoid it. Edited September 30, 2010 by TimG

[Topaz]

They don't call it the oldest profession for nothing. Its always going to be there and the best way, is to treat as a regular business. A Windsor On,a professor, has been study this since the '90's and she was one of the ones that helped the Ontario judge change the law in Ontario. She said in New Zealand, they have changed their laws on prostitution, its declared a business under labour and occupation health and they have to pay taxes, have working conditions, legal age etc. I would add , that when a female or male, wants to do this line of work, mental health issues should be checked and see why they want to enter into this line of work.