Prostitution Proposal

[GostHacked]

I agree that it should be legal and I would go a step further and say it shouldn't be taxed. What happens in people's bedrooms and the reasons they have for sleeping with someone else is none of the state's business.

You could say that for any private agreement between two people. I hire you for some yard work regularly. But I pay you cash. By law, you should be claiming it as income and have it taxed.

If someone wants to give another person money to sleep with that, that should be between those parties. Sex should not be treated as any other commodity. It should be treated as a private and confidential matter between individuals.

I see sex as different here as well. I am not sure about the taxing part. But you make some interesting points.

[TimG]

Because domestic prostitutes that want to keep their profession discrete will stay underground to avoid taxes that may expose them.

The law currently stipulates that income tax returns cannot be used a evidence of criminal activity. i.e. you can declare money made selling cocaine and the police have no right to even know this never mind use it as evidence.

If a someone does not pay taxes prostitution related income it is because she is either greedy or unaware of the law. Your tax evasion argument is a red herring.

[Big Guy]

Most knowledgeable pundits feel that this law will also prove to be unconstitutional. They suggest that it be sent to the Supreme Court for comment before ramming it through the legislature. Problem is that the Conservatives have waited too long to create this legislation and now are trying to kick the can down the road for after the election.

I think this proposed legislation should be sent to the Supreme Court for evaluation.

Edited June 6, 2014 by Big Guy

[Big Guy]

Why can prostitution not be treated in the same manner as physiotherapy, chiropractic and massage therapy?

[GostHacked]

Why can prostitution not be treated in the same manner as physiotherapy, chiropractic and massage therapy?

Then I could get OHIP to pay for hookers??? I'm listening...

[guyser]

Then I could get OHIP to pay for hookers??? I'm listening...

.....lets just hope our wives/GF's are listening.

[cybercoma]

You could say that for any private agreement between two people. I hire you for some yard work regularly. But I pay you cash. By law, you should be claiming it as income and have it taxed.I see sex as different here as well. I am not sure about the taxing part. But you make some interesting points.

You could say it for any private agreement, but sex is qualitatively different. Our sex lives and who we choose to have sex with and our reasons for having sex are nobody's business. If someone decides to give you money to sleep with them and you decide you're going to, it's none of the government's business.

[Argus]

Porth would say that, wouldn't she?

The fact is that the Swedish law has eliminated street prostitution and largely reduced prostitution in general. There is a lot of evidence on the Internet about this. More pointedly, the law has widespread political support.

Is it the law which has reduced prostitution or the generous Swedish social safety system which has reduced prostitution?

[monty16]

Any move by Harper's Conservative government is not aimed at social responsibility unless they stumble into it by mistake. They didn't in this case.

Conservatives (small c) tell us that they don't believe in socially responsible government every day. Why would anybody continue to not believe them? Can any conservative or rightist on this forum say they believe in social responsibility? Haven't they already made their bed on the issue at least once on this forum already?

[August1991]

Most knowledgeable pundits feel that this law will also prove to be unconstitutional.

You mean "most knowledgeable pundits" from the English-Canadian, anti-Harper MSM. Then again, maybe Harper is setting this issue to be a future argument with the Supreme Court - but I doubt that. This law is Charter-proof.

====

There seem to be two groups on this forum: left-wing, "progressives" who hate Harper and so-called Libertarians who hate Leftist progressives.

It is understandable that this legislation will be attacked by both these groups. But the fact of the matter is that Mackay's approach works in Sweden (check out Internet sites discussing such issues) and this approach meets with broad public approval. On this issue, participants on this forum are not representative of the general opinion in Canada (English and French).

Edited June 6, 2014 by August1991

[August1991]

Is it the law which has reduced prostitution or the generous Swedish social safety system which has reduced prostitution?

It's the law that has reduced prostitution. (The Swedish social safety net has existed for decades - the prostitution law dates from the late 1990s. BTW, Canada's social safety net is comparable to Scandinavia's - particularly in Quebec.)

BTW, the Swedish law has even reduced drug-trafficking (based on wiretaps) since drug/prostitution activities are inter-related.

=====

Many posters here seem to think that in Sweden, "sex doesn't exist". That's not true. IMV, the Swedish law simply changes the power balance.

I strongly suggest posters check out the Swedish/Nordic model.

Edited June 6, 2014 by August1991

[scribblet]

...........

There seem to be two groups on this forum: left-wing, "progressives" who hate Harper and so-called Libertarians who hate Leftist progressives.

It is understandable that this legislation will be attacked by both these groups. But the fact of the matter is that Mackay's approach works in Sweden (check out Internet sites discussing such issues) and this approach meets with broad public approval. On this issue, participants on this forum are not representative of the general opinion in Canada (English and French).

It's my understanding that this legislation is based on the Nordic model, and works well for them.

I guess some people here view sex as a legitimate commodity for commerce, but there's an interesting piece here from Der Spiegel

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/human-trafficking-persists-despite-legality-of-prostitution-in-germany-a-902533.html

When Germany legalized prostitution just over a decade ago, politicians hoped that it would create better conditions and more autonomy for sex workers. It hasn't worked out that way, though. Exploitation and human trafficking remain significant problems. By SPIEGEL Staff

[Big Guy]

You mean "most knowledgeable pundits" from the English-Canadian, anti-Harper MSM. Then again, maybe Harper is setting this issue to be a future argument with the Supreme Court - but I doubt that. This law is Charter-proof.

...

You may indeed be correct but if that is the case then why does the Harper government not want to send it to the Supreme Court for an immediate opinion?

There are a number of more neutral organizations that feel this law will not pass legal muster;

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/06/04/john-ivison-peter-mackays-prostitution-law-a-failure-on-all-counts/

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/daniel-tencer/prostitution-law-canada_b_5451466.html

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-new-prostitution-laws-changing-the-terms-of-the-debate-or-missing-the-point-entirely/

[August1991]

BigGuy, I'll use this quote from the Macleans piece:

But Janine Benedet, a University of British Columbia law professor and director of its Centre for Feminist Legal Studies, says MacKay has fundamentally changed the basis of any future legal battle. Whereas the old laws were largely designed to combat the public-nuisance aspects of prostitution, his new one is framed in its preamble as being rooted in grave concerns about the exploitation that is inherent in prostitution and the risks of violence posed to those who engage in it.

They are changing the legislative focus, Benedet said. For the very first time we have a legislative statement that one of the objectives here is to actually reduce the demand for prostitution, and weve never seen that before.

---------

Should Harper refer this legislation to the Supreme Court? That would in effect turn the Supreme Court into Canada's new superior house of sober second thought.

In any case, this law will not be tested in the courts until after the next election, and when the Supreme Court has fewer activist, wannabe-politiciansjudges.

[Big Guy]

....

---------

Should Harper refer this legislation to the Supreme Court? That would in effect turn the Supreme Court into Canada's new superior house of sober second thought.

In any case, this law will not be tested in the courts until after the next election, and when the Supreme Court has fewer activist, wannabe-politiciansjudges.

Again, you are probably correct. I guess that it is brilliant politics but am disappointed that a government would choose kick a problem down the road rather than try to resolve a problem. If indeed the new proposed legislation is not constitutional then why waste all that time and effort in trying to get it through parliament? I also believe that our Supreme Court has always acted as the last house of sober thought - a check and balance that the government of the time does not allow its partisan dogma to be converted into law.

[ReeferMadness]

Andrew Coyne has posited that this legislation is simply a gambit. The Conservatives themselves are aware that is unlikely to survive a constitutional challenge but they also know that having the SC overturn their legislation (however inane it is), it fires up their base. Harper's legions of gullible, poorly informed but wealthy followers cry "judge-made law" and run to their cheque books.

Just in time for the election.

[GostHacked]

Want them off the street? Brothels and escort services.

[Smallc]

Want them off the street? Brothels and escort services.

Exactly...enough with policy influenced by 'morality'.

[jacee]

Andrew Coyne has posited that this legislation is simply a gambit. The Conservatives themselves are aware that is unlikely to survive a constitutional challenge but they also know that having the SC overturn their legislation (however inane it is), it fires up their base. Harper's legions of gullible, poorly informed but wealthy followers cry "judge-made law" and run to their cheque books.

Just in time for the election.

So ... you're saying that Harper is playing politics with taxpayer money.

I agree.

.

[August1991]

Andrew Coyne has posited that this legislation is simply a gambit.

I strongly recommend that you guys (including Andrew Coyne who probably stops by this forum every so often) read about the experience of Sweden. The Swedish law has been in place for about 15 years and it is very popular. And it works.

I think one of the key features is how the Swedish law (and Mackay's proposed legislation) changes the negotiating position. In addition, the Swedish law has had an effect on other illegal activities.

[jacee]

Should Harper refer this legislation to the Supreme Court? That would in effect turn the Supreme Court into Canada's new superior house of sober second thought.

The Supreme Court is one of the 3 branches of government and that is how it is supposed to function, part of the democratic checks and balances built in to the system.

Most governments do thorough constitutional vetting of new legislation to ensure that it won't be challenged and overturned by the courts.

Harper throws any ideological trash he dreams up on paper, specifically to challenge the court... wasting a ton of our money in the process.

[August1991]

The Supreme Court is one of the 3 branches of government and that is how it is supposed to function, part of the democratic checks and balances...

jacee, are you American? We have no such "branches of government" in Canada.

The NDP is wrong to argue that Harper should refer this legislation to the Supreme Court before passage. The Supreme Court is not a legislative body. Indeed, I would argue that its main task is to ensure the division of powers and the correct balance between sovereign provinces and the central government.

Edited June 10, 2014 by August1991

[August1991]

Harper throws any ideological trash he dreams up on paper, specifically to challenge the court... wasting a ton of our money in the process.

oh, right. You're anti-Harper. Which means that even when this government proposes legislation to protect vulnerable women, you oppose Harper.

If Harper said the world was round, jacee you would argue that it is flat.

[guyser]

We have no such "branches of government" in Canada.

We dont? Since when?

The Supreme Court is not a legislative body

Right......its the Judicial branch, one of the three branches of govt you just decreed does not exist .

Edited June 10, 2014 by Guyser2

[August1991]

We dont? Since when?Right......its the Judicial branch, one of the three branches of govt you just decreed does not exist .

The US Constitution has "branches of government" (following Montesquieu) but the BNA Act was written in a different time, in different circumstances.

For Canadians, the Governor in Council is a more important "branch".