Should Prostitution Be Legal

[GostHacked]

I'm betting the prostitutes will soon be pining for the 'bad' old days should the government ever decide to get into the business. Just like I think a lot of people in the world of weed are thinking twice about its legalization given the intent to corporatize it.

The government is here and it's here to help? Eff off.

Actually this is getting the government out of the way. Legalize it, and regulate it so the ladies have a safe working environment. Right now the trade is legal but where it operates is an issue? The world's oldest profession is still alive today. Maybe approach it like Amsterdam.

[WWWTT]

Actually this is getting the government out of the way.

In my opinion that's not what's going to happen.

As I understand it, the supreme court has given the Harper conservatives 1 year to provide the proper legislation reflecting the reality of the ruling/interpretation of the charter.

This is forcing the government to do something that they are against!

And here's the real zinger, we are in an parliamentary government!

Meaning that the far right wing radicals can stay locked down in their cabins, shot gun in hand, taking pot shots at anyone who tries to reform the laws!

I'm sure that there are enough red torys, combined with the indi., bloq liberals and NDP to create the legislation required to pass through the lower house.

Effectively circumventing Harper and his cabin burners!

If this happens, it will be a huge slap in the face of Harper!

If the moderators read this, reinstate my thread under federal politics!

This is clearly not just about prostitution!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Uruguay notwithstanding I guess....and I'm betting what they smoke down there is bunk compared to what's available in Vancouver, Seattle or Amsterdam.

Are you implying that there is a "quality" system that can be applied to sex trade workers that can have an impact????

WWWTT

[eyeball]

Nope, not at all. My comment was strictly about the quality of pot.

[jacee]

In my opinion that's not what's going to happen.

As I understand it, the supreme court has given the Harper conservatives 1 year to provide the proper legislation reflecting the reality of the ruling/interpretation of the charter.

This is forcing the government to do something that they are against!

And here's the real zinger, we are in an parliamentary government!

Meaning that the far right wing radicals can stay locked down in their cabins, shot gun in hand, taking pot shots at anyone who tries to reform the laws!

I'm sure that there are enough red torys,

... who are not 'whipped' ... ?

combined with the indi., bloq liberals and NDP to create the legislation required to pass through the lower house.

Effectively circumventing Harper and his cabin burners!

If this happens, it will be a huge slap in the face of Harper!

If the moderators read this, reinstate my thread .under federal politics!

This is clearly not just about prostitution!

WWWTT

The feds can also choose to do nothing and municipalities can deal with it through bylaws.

.

Edited December 22, 2013 by jacee

[ReeferMadness]

I don't know what took so long but congratulations to the Supreme Court justices for finally recognizing the obvious hypocrisy of the prostitution laws. Rather than directly criminalizing the act of paid sex, they criminalized communication about the act of paying for sex and making money helping someone who is getting paid for sex. Clearly the laws were remnants of Victorian attitudes towards sex.

The question is now what? The political parties have a serious problem on their hands and it will be interesting to see how this plays out. On the right, Harper and the knuckle draggers need to do something to placate their right wing base, the ones who really do have Victorian attitudes towards. However, anything that placates the social conservatives will not sit well with the small-government, libertarian bunch.

On the left, there will also be a split, between those who favour decriminalizing prostitutes as a way of protecting women and the staunch feminists who are firm in the belief that prostitution is simply part of male hegemony. The latter want Swedish style laws that criminalize purchasers of sex (mainly men) but not the sellers.

I think there is an opportunity here for the Liberals (and possibly the Greens) to drive up the middle and come out the winners on this issue. If they advocate for legalization in a way that keeps prostitution low profile (ie not Vegas or Amsterdam), they can appeal to a broad cross section without alienating a big part of their constituency. Both the Conservatives and the NDP will be hard pressed to avoid antagonizing part of their bases.

[WWWTT]

... who are not 'whipped' ... ?

The feds can also choose to do nothing and municipalities can deal with it through bylaws.

.

A number of sitting MP's, yes even senators can introduce a bill(s) to address solicitation/prostitution. Harper can be literally pulled out of the drivers seat (albeit only on this one issue). I'm sure the opposition parties are scheming there next moves right now to try and use this opportunity to their advantage! I doubt we'll see anything till the new year, but maybe?

WWWTT

[jacee]

A number of sitting MP's, yes even senators can introduce a bill(s) to address solicitation/prostitution. Harper can be literally pulled out of the drivers seat (albeit only on this one issue).

WWWTT

Not if he whips the vote. His MP's have little choice if they want to keep their jobs.

That's why Chong's bill is so important.

It looks like the feds are going to make it an issue ...

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2013/12/22/21353771.html

The Conservative government is giving its strongest signal yet it will replace the prostitution laws struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada with new measures.

"(Justice) Minister (Peter) MacKay can count on my full support to implement an appropriate response to that decision," Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney said Sunday on CTV.

He says he's "disappointed" with Friday's unanimous declaration that Canada's bans on brothels, communicating for the purpose of prostitution and living off its profits are unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court concluded the current laws violate hookers' right to security of the person, but Blaney says the government will find another way to help women because prostitution turns people "into real modern slaves."

Edited December 23, 2013 by jacee

[WWWTT]

Ya but wasn't this ruling already the result from an appeal started from the government?????the conservatives just can't keep saying that they don't like the decision or say that the sex trade is wrong because it encourages people to become addicts.to me it sounds like McKay is only digging the conservative grave deeper with this one!side note would be McKay s far right position here sounds like he is playing to the base and may try to take a run as the conservative leader post Harper

WWWTT

[Shady]

I don't care if prostitution is made legal, however I do have a problem with street solicitation.

[jacee]

I don't care if prostitution is made legal, however I do have a problem with street solicitation.

Prostitution is already legal. The thread title is wrong and misleading.

Now it is also legal to operate a brothel, hopefully taking the industry off the street.

.

[WWWTT]

Prostitution is already legal. The thread title is wrong and misleading.

.

Yes you are right!

This discussion is about an superior court decision made! More of a federal political topic.

I created the thread but the moderation on this site feel that this is a theoretical/philosophy and not a judicial/political subject.

I disagree with the moderation and hold this as an example of proof in their failings!

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

Now it is also legal to operate a brothel, hopefully taking the industry off the street.

This is wrong actually. It's still illegal until Dec. 20, 2014. The decision is suspended to give Parliament 1 year to come up with new legislation.

[GostHacked]

This is wrong actually. It's still illegal until Dec. 20, 2014. The decision is suspended to give Parliament 1 year to come up with new legislation.

How does one apply the law if the legislation needs to be adjusted?

[jacee]

How does one apply the law if the legislation needs to be adjusted?

I guess the current laws stay in effect for a year.

[WWWTT]

I guess the current laws stay in effect for a year.

But if you are charged, your lawyer will use the supreme court decision to have the charge thrown out of court.

The supreme court ruling still stands!

Therefore the police will probably not charge you in the first place.(assuming that you are allegedly in contravention of the law in question)

I believe that you are practically right, theoretically wrong.

The bigger question (for me anyways) is what will the new laws look like???

What can the right wing radical conservatives stomach to bring forward that the supreme court can define is within everyones charter of rights and freedoms???

This has to be one of the most bizarre perplexing head scratching mysteries in Canadian politics?!?!?

WWWTT

[Rue]

Let's clarify the law. It is not illegal to be a prostitute, i.e., accept money for sex. The criminal code does not make it illegal.

The criminal code did say if someone lived off of the avails of prostitution, i.e., someone other than the person providing the sex benefitted financially, i.e., a pimp or brothel owner, what they were engaging in was illegal.

It was also and still is technically a criminal offence to pay someone for a sex act.

That is all there in the criminal code.

What the law professor argued and most of us law types knew he would win, is that if prostitution is not illegal it was not logical that

anyone assisting a legal act could be defined as engaging in an illegality.

However to challenge that the charter was used to say since a prostitute does not do anything illegal she should be allowed to pay others to keep her safe on her job. They used the safety argument first and foremost.

What the Supreme Court said was,if you politicians don't like the Charter that guarantees people's safety when engaging in a legal act, you have a year to do something about it. The Supreme Court has a legal obligation to apply the Charter as widely as possible in any situation because it is so written in the Charter and it had no choice if what prostitutes do is legal to find their managers legal as well.

The politicians have choices including:

1-making it illegal to charge money for prostitution;

2-regulate prostitution and keep it legal.

In regards to 1, if Harper makes it illegal to accept money for sex, then necessarily he would have to re-write the Criminal Code and if this happened then pimps and brothels would automatically become accomplices before and after the fact and be equally as criminal.

In regards to 2, regulation would probably have to happen at the municipal level, i.e.,municipalities would have to zone specific areas if they wanted to prevent it from spreading into the suburbs; but as well we would need health officials to monitor disease and health and safety practices and that overlaps between the provinces and federal government and if the governments wanted to regulate the age of prostitutes that would probably be provincial although it could be put in the criminal code as well.

The reality is it is not realistic to think the law can prevent prostitution, it never has. All it did was drive it underground.

What we need to assure is that it is regulated so we can control the spread of disease and underage youth being recruited into it. W e need to tax it to use that money for health services and rehabilitation services to get kids off the street and prevent the spread of aids or other communicable diseases.

If we regulate prostitution it will require cooperation between the fed gov. and provinces who delegate some of their authority to municipalities, i.e., zoning of certain businesses, inspection of certain health matters.

Most people are concerned we control disease and the exploitation of children and the vulnerable from the sex trade industry not prostitution itself.

What someone does in a private room with a consenting adult should not be our concern. If the actions are not done consensually and/or spread disease or hurt children then society has to step in.

Right now for the next year what I am worried about is vulnerable children are free to be exploited on the streets by pimps and more pimps and street hookers means more violence, exploitation of the vulnerable and children, and spread of disease.

The police right now are hand-cuffed.As it is police were reluctant to do anything on the streets. The decoy busts were simply show and tell politics done periodically to placate politicians of certain neighbourhoods. These decoy busts using police officers dressed as hookers never were effective they were just show and tell. Ask any cop.

One time I came out of Mapleleaf Gardens and was harassed by a police decoy. I told her if she was going to pose as a hooker and harass people at least do something about her teeth. Her teeth were perfect and she had clean nails and hands. I said put some dirt in those nails, colour your teeth and try some makeup to at least make one cold sore. Lord being accosted by a woman with good teeth and muscular arms and legs, give me a break. Oh I know what you are thinking-drag? No, she looked like she was a Canadian Olympic skiier.

Man oh man.

By the way if anyone thinks prostitution can be stopped go on the internet or Now Magazine an get a reality test.

Having worked in the court system with this crap all I can tell you is I hate pimps and I hate to see children and abused adults and drug addicts being exploited but I think the only way to stop that is to regulate it.

Morality? All I know is the politicians and people who cry the loudest against prostitution are usually their most dependent customers.

I do not judge hookers. Why? They sell their bodies yes, and that is not always a good thing but it does not make them evil people.

Some feel trapped into doing it. Others say is there any real difference between what I do and what we all do during an inyerview to get a job?

Think about it. We all get screwed by politicians and find them hard to swallow.

Let's seriously look at this legal development as an opportunity to once and for all properly legalize and regulate it.

[TimG]

Let's seriously look at this legal development as an opportunity to once and for all properly legalize and regulate it.

Any regulation requires rules and sanctions for not following the rules.

i.e. what does the government do if a regulation requires that a prostitute use protection but a prostitute desperate for cash does not? Kick the prostitute out of the regulated workforce? Accept the risk and liability that comes with allowing a regulated worker to flout the rules?

I suspect the former will be used since the legal liability would be costly but that just means the prostitute is out on the street without any of the protections that these regulations are supposed to provide.

This ruling changes nothing because the women most at risk who need the protections (e.g. drug addicts) will not follow the rules required to receive those protections.

Edited December 25, 2013 by TimG

[cybercoma]

But if you are charged, your lawyer will use the supreme court decision to have the charge thrown out of court.

Possibly, but not necessarily so. The SCC's decision makes it clear that the law remains in effect until 20 Dec 2014.

[nwontariohunter]

Yes. Same as mj

[WWWTT]

Possibly, but not necessarily so. The SCC's decision makes it clear that the law remains in effect until 20 Dec 2014.

When I have time I will try to understand every little detail.

Until then, it sounds very unclear or there is a lot of grey areas.

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

When I have time I will try to understand every little detail.

Until then, it sounds very unclear or there is a lot of grey areas.

WWWTT

There is no grey area. The decision they came to is that Parliament has to rewrite the laws before Dec. 20, 2014. Until then, nothing changes. If they rewrite the laws, then the new ones will replace the old ones. If they don't rewrite the laws, then the old ones will expire at that time.

[WWWTT]

There is no grey area. The decision they came to is that Parliament has to rewrite the laws before Dec. 20, 2014. Until then, nothing changes. If they rewrite the laws, then the new ones will replace the old ones. If they don't rewrite the laws, then the old ones will expire at that time.

As I understand the ruling, this comment is not practically correct because something DID change!

The supreme court rule unanimously that the current laws go against the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms (that was a big change!) Now that usually means that the government has to rewrite the laws, or eliminate them. (so that part sounds right)

And since the government works at a snails crawl on a windy day on their backs, I even doubt one year is enough time!

I just can't see the crown holding a charge after this ruling because every defence lawyer will refer back to it and there won't be a single judge in this country that will dare ignore a supreme court ruling! Even if there was a way out there rogue judge that was some kind of redneck (don't laugh it's happened in Canada many times!) defence lawyers will keep on delaying the case till the deadline past.

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

WWWTT, go read the ruling. It states explicitly that the ruling is suspended until Dec. 20, 2014. In other words, the current laws are in effect until that date.

Edited December 30, 2013 by cybercoma

[WWWTT]

If that was the case, then why is Toronto police chief Bill Blair not going to enforce the laws that the supreme court shot down?

http://ca.yhs4.search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7o5_zcBSU1EAVloXFwx.;_ylu=X3oDMTBybnZlZnRlBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=14qtg8m7t/EXP=1388396031/**http%3a//www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/toronto-police-chief-bill-blair-weighs-in-on-recent-supreme-court-rulings/article16111253/

Keep in mind that this is a supreme court ruling from an government appeal grown from an earlier lower Ontario court ruling shooting down those same prostitution laws in Ontario only.

http://ca.yhs4.search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7o5_zcBSU1EAWVoXFwx.;_ylu=X3oDMTBybjFrcjVnBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNARjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=13pnjpcbj/EXP=1388396031/**http%3a//news.nationalpost.com/2012/10/25/canadas-supreme-court-to-review-landmark-prostitution-ruling/

It could be that those prostitution laws in question in Ontario are completely wiped out, but across Canada, may still have some running legs. But I am not sure?

I wouldn't be so quick to simply say that this is a clear decision because this is a decision that resulted from another decision of another jurisdiction. And in Canadian law, court rulings can be brought to the attention of a judge preceding over a case for consideration.

WWWTT