Canada’s prostitution laws unconstitutional, court rules

[Evening Star]

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

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.

How does that quote illustrate that this ruling will do nothing to help women? Because one prostitute doesn't want to be identified and registered?

Sidenote: Prostitution surely isn't literally the world's oldest profession, right? Hunting had to come first?

[TimG]

How does that quote illustrate that this ruling will do nothing to help women? Because one prostitute doesn't want to be identified and registered?

Do you really think she is alone? Do you really think a drug addicted streetwalker with aids would stop doing tricks because she can't get a license? The fact is the women who are best able to deal with a regulatory regime are already taking care of themselves via escort agencies. The women who are really at risk because of psychological/drug issues won't be able to deal with the rules. These women need shelters, detoxes and rehab. They don't need the government to enable their addictions.

[Mr.Canada]

The left is always talking about being against the objectification of women. Making prostitution legal does exactly that doesn't it? Makes women objects of a mans sexual desire based on appearance. Precisely what women's lib of the 70's was against. Seems odd that women now want to be objectified.

To be clear I'm not against the new laws as long as it's taxed and the whores are required to get business licenses like any other business would. Paying their HST, WSIB, CPP, EI or whatever else would apply. Whores have been living tax free for long enough, the state could really use that tax revenue.

Edited September 30, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[Keepitsimple]

Interesting article in The Star's print edition today but it doesn't appear online. The headline reads "Sexual Pioneers Backtrack on Happy Hookers". Although our noted judge took a year to come to her decision - it appears that she didn't have a need to look at the failures of other countries:

While Canada edges towards decriminalizing prostitution, European countries famous for their tolerance say they've been there, done that and are now moving in other directions.

But some European countries that were in the vanguard of sexual freedom have backed off in the last decade, as the tide of human trafficking has flowed faster. Some have tightened their laws, others are looking at alternatives such as decriminalizing prostitutes and putting the onus on the men who buy sex from them.

"Crime and human trafficking have come into the picture, and it's not fun anymore" said Xaviera Hollander, famous for her book The Happy Hooker...."I don't think this change in Canadian law would protect women" she said. "Prostitution should not be criminalized, but the vicious white slave trade has gone right through the European Union and it's widespread"

As trafficking increased in the Netherlands - with up to three-quarters of prostitutes controlled by criminals - Dutch mayors fought back, refusing to license dozens of brothels for which the country is famous. They have also set up retraining and psychological counselling centers to give prostitutes a new start.

But the most radical change is in Sweden, where legislation in 1999 criminalized "johns" and treated women who sold sex as victims. "The demand for sex has dropped, and police and social service officials say that Sweden s a much less interesting market for human traffickers".

Link: manually entered from print article in The Star

[dre]

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.

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.

It depends how the government responds. They could still win an appeal, or they go back to the drawing board and write new legislation that doesnt violate the charter, But I think thats pretty tough now due to the findings here.

[dre]

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.

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

Then this ruling should make you very happy. Because thats exactly what the courts and government HAVE been doing. Theyve been making that decision for every municipality in the country, and now they cant do it anymore.

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.

Nope. This particular ruling isnt about that. This ruling struck down legislation that prevents any municipality anywhere from treating it as a legal business. Now municipalities will be able to choose whether they license this type of business or not.

Its an excellent ruling, because we will get some good test cases now. I doubt there will be any massive rush to contruct brothels around the country, and most cities will probably not allow them at first. But SOME cities will, and they will act as a testbed, that we can gather empirical evidence and statistics from.

[Evening Star]

Do you really think she is alone? Do you really think a drug addicted streetwalker with aids would stop doing tricks because she can't get a license? The fact is the women who are best able to deal with a regulatory regime are already taking care of themselves via escort agencies. The women who are really at risk because of psychological/drug issues won't be able to deal with the rules. These women need shelters, detoxes and rehab. They don't need the government to enable their addictions.

We can speculate about what might or might not happen. It seems reasonable to me to expect that when people have safer legal alternatives available, there will be less demand for "a drug addicted streetwalker with aids". This might provide more incentive for said streetwalker to seek shelters and detoxes. Or it might not. We'll see. However, I have to assume that there are some prostitutes out there who are neither working for escort agencies nor HIV-positive drug addicts. (I could be wrong since I don't have much experience in the field.) And presumably they would benefit (or they wouldn't have been fighting this legal case in the first place). Either way, I don't see how the existing prohibitions are helping these women.

And while prostitution does objectify women, I think the point is that prohibiting or severely restricting it legally has not prevented it. Pornography objectifies women too but I don't see many people calling for it to be made illegal. Pop music videos objectify women too, for that matter.

[eyeball]

Then this ruling should make you very happy. Because thats exactly what the courts and government HAVE been doing. Theyve been making that decision for every municipality in the country, and now they cant do it anymore.

I haven't read the ruling and I doubt you have either so I'm pretty sure we're both making this up as we type but as I see it the ruling effectively tells governments they cannot put prostitutes lives at risk by creating laws that force them underground. Whatever decisions courts and governments have been making for everyone else, prostitutes will now have a greater ability to start making more decisions for themselves which is a much better situation in terms of avoiding and preventing danger.

Nope. This particular ruling isnt about that. This ruling struck down legislation that prevents any municipality anywhere from treating it as a legal business.

And in so doing gives municipalities little excuse to not begin treating them as such.

Now municipalities will be able to choose whether they license this type of business or not.

I suspect those that don't will quickly run afoul of the ruling's intent, to make the trade safer by not forcing it to operate underground, which would happen if licences are withheld.

Its an excellent ruling, because we will get some good test cases now. I doubt there will be any massive rush to contruct brothels around the country, and most cities will probably not allow them at first. But SOME cities will, and they will act as a testbed, that we can gather empirical evidence and statistics from.

I doubt there will be a rush to build new ones but you can probably expect many business's that already exist right now in virtually every city in Canada will wish to somehow register their existence so they can access services, pay taxes, get insurance etc. I suspect as many test cases will be launched to speed the process of legalization and normalization as much as slow it down.

Alcohol probably went through a similar process when it's prohibition was ended and it's probably how things will unfold as the needlessly harmful prohibition of other vices is lifted.

[August1991]

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...

Topaz, it's interesting that you mention New Zealand:

Swedish prostitution law model for New Zealand

Independent MP Gordon Copeland today said that the enormous success of the 1999 reform of prostitution law in Sweden provides a model for New Zealand to follow.

"Swedish Officials have reported that the new law, the only one of its kind in the world, is an incredible success story," said Mr Copeland.

"The Swedish law criminalises the purchase or brokering of sexual services and provides for up to six years in prisons for pimps. On the other hand the selling of sex has been decriminalised since the goal of the new law is to assist the women, who are frequently emotionally and physically imperilled, out of the industry altogether."

Link

----

It depends how the government responds. They could still win an appeal, or they go back to the drawing board and write new legislation that doesnt violate the charter, But I think thats pretty tough now due to the findings here.

This is a good question.

I haven't followed this case closely but from what I understand, the Ontario judge struck down provisions in the (federal) Criminal Code but gave 30 days before the decision has effect.

In the short term, I suspect that federal justice lawyers will seek a stay of the decision and prepare an appeal. More pertinently though, in the longer term, I see a rewrite of these federal Criminal Code provisions.

IMV, this decision is a gift to the Conservatives. They will rewrite the Criminal Code to criminalize the purchase of sex (ie. men who hire prostitutes will contravene the law) - and remove any provisions about the sale of sex. At the same time, the Conservatives will announce measures to help young women/prostitutes deal with drug addiction issues or in need of counselling.

This may be one of Harper's magic bullets to win a majority by moving some women to the Tory side. Was the Ontario judge a Tory appointee?

Edited October 1, 2010 by August1991

[Evening Star]

Decision stayed until April 29:

http://www.torontolife.com/daily/informer/the-feds/2010/12/02/weekend-plans-ruined-prostitution-still-effectively-illegal-in-ontario/

[Evening Star]

McGuinty keeps making it harder for me to like him.

[TimG]

I see it the ruling effectively tells governments they cannot put prostitutes lives at risk by creating laws that force them underground.

Well, if this is really the case it implies that governments are not allowed to impose any regulations on prostitution (e.g. regular health checks) because some twisted person will argue that it forces women underground. Such a ruling is unacceptable to almost everyone.

The government is entitled to restrict the sale of sex even if it has negative ramifications for women who want sell it and this judgement is nothing but on judge's opinion on the current set of restrictions.

I also think it is time for a little common sense. There are two classes of prositutes. Those that do it by choice and those who do it out of desperation.

The ones that do it by choice already have relatively safe venues that allow them to sell themselves (escort services). They do not need help and it not clear they would want to give up their anonymity to work in legal establishments.

The ones who do it out of desperation (drug addiction, sex trafficing, et. al.) will not be able to operate within a regulated framework because they would not be able to comply with the rules. They will end up doing what they always do.

The same would be true if the john's are criminalized because deperate women still want the money and reducing the number of potential customers will simply force them to lower their prices.

Edited December 3, 2010 by TimG

[Jack Weber]

McGuinty keeps making it harder for me to like him.

This is what makes you start to dislike McGuinty???

[Evening Star]

Ha, well, not exactly. I mean, I said "keeps". And I still think he's much better than the alternative (unless the ONDP can REALLY get their act together).

[August1991]

MacKay added that his department has examined several regulatory regimes outside Canada, including the so-called Nordic model, which has been touted by many groups.

In Sweden, Iceland and Norway, selling sex is legal but purchasing it is not. Police in those jurisdictions focus their attention on the activities of pimps and johns.

But MacKay described the forthcoming bill as a uniquely Canadian solution.

"There is no simple answer to a question as complex as prostitution.

"Suffice it to say that we are focusing - and will be focusing in this legislation - on not only acting in the best interests of the vulnerable and Canadians, but also there will need to be support mechanisms outside the legislation in order to help people to transition out of the sex trade," MacKay said.

CBC

IOW, Mackay will introduce a version of the Swedish legislation.

Why? In Sweden, polls show that about 80% of the population supports its 1998 legislation making it illegal to pay for sex - while the sale of sex is treated as a social problem.

My only caveat: Sweden is a Lutheran country. Canada is largely a Catholic country. Different Christians view sin differently. I suspect however that the Swedish model will meet the approval of many ex-Catholic women.

----

Along with the new electoral map and the new electoral law, I suspect that this will be another of several (minor) changes to ensure Harper's re-election in 2015. Harper knows that to win a majority, he needs a few specific voters on a few specific issues in a few specific ridings. (With this new prostitution law, Harper will peel off a few women voters from Liberals in key ridings.)

And Harper knows how to raise the money from his million or so base supporters to have the means to advertise, send a message and reach those specific voters.

I reckon that Mulcair and Trudeau Jnr (who will divide the vote) are clueless. The NDP and the LPC don't know who their supporters are, or don't know how to raise funds, They don't know how to tailor their message to specific voters.

Edited April 22, 2014 by August1991