Canada’s looming debate on prostitution laws


View Poll Results: How should Parliament replace Canada’s prostitution laws?
Do nothing (Canada should have no prostitution laws) 1 7.14%
Nordic model (ban the purchase of sex; prosecute clients and pimps) 0 0%
New Zealand model (decriminalize prostitution; regulate for safety) 13 92.86%
Notwithstanding Clause (suspend Charter s. 7, continue current laws) 0 0%
Don’t know / Prefer not to respond 0 0%
Voters: 14. You may not vote on this poll

FiveParadox
Liberal
#1
On December 13, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada (in a unanimous 9-0 decision) struck down Canada’s prostitution laws, with The Right Honourable Madame Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin P.C., the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, noting that “it is not a crime in Canada to sell sex for money.” The Supreme Court gave the Parliament of Canada one year to replace these “grossly disproportionate” laws.

This arose when Canada’s laws relating to prostitution were challenged to the Supreme Court of Canada (on appeal from the Ontario Court of Appeal), on the basis that the current legal framework for prostitution was a violation of sex trade workers’ “right to life, liberty, and security of the person” under s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The argument was that Canada’s prostitution laws made the industry unreasonable dangerous for sex trade workers.

It is expected in the next few weeks that The Honourable Peter MacKay P.C., M.P. (Central Nova), the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, will be introducing prostitution laws to replace those that are scheduled to be invalidated at the end of this year. The conversation has already started on Parliament Hill, with Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition in the Senate conducting hearings on the most fair and effective way to move forward.

It would seem, to me, that there are four options available to Parliament:

1 - Do nothing. If Parliament does nothing, then the current laws on the books related to prostitution will be struck down on December 13, 2014, and these laws would cease to apply. This means that it would no longer be illegal to operate or be found in a brothel, or to communicate publicly for the purposes of prostitution.

2 - Adopt the “Nordic” Model. Adopted first in Sweden and spread to Norway and Iceland, brothels and the purchase of sex are illegal; it targets clients and pimps for prosecution. (This system essentially makes it legal to sell sex, and illegal to purchase sex, which effectively maintains a legal ban on the activities related to prostitution.)

3 - Adopt the “New Zealand” Model. In 2003, New Zealand passed significant changes to its prostitution laws. These reforms included decriminalizing brothels, escort agencies, and soliciting prostitution. (Essentially, the changes decriminalized the range of activities related to prostitution, and is seen to be one of the most liberal models.) The Minister of Justice has signaled that this is likely not a model that Her Majesty’s Government would propose.

4 - Invoke the Notwithstanding Clause. Perhaps the most “severe” response available to the Parliament of Canada, the Government could recommend that s. 33 of the Constitution Act, 1982 be invoked, which would expressly authorize Parliament to legislate in violation of the “right to life, liberty, and security of the person.” This would allow Parliament to continue its current prostitution laws, but this would need to be re-authorized every 5 years.

What do you think? How should Parliament proceed?

Source: Decriminalize sex workers, Senate told during public hearing (Montréal Gazette)
Source: Supreme Court strikes down Canada’s prostitution laws (CBC)
Source: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Ministry of Justice)
Last edited by FiveParadox; May 4th, 2014 at 02:22 PM..Reason: I switched #2 and #3, because I accidentally put the poll in the wrong order.
 
B00Mer
Republican
#2
Humm... this is a debate??

vancouver - escorts - backpage.com

$100 bucks for a few hours, no strings attached, no commitments, she may even wash up the dishes before she leaves..

 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+1
#3
I think #2 is probably the way I would lean. We are wasting precious resources on sex and weed which could be better applied. Not to mention loss of tax revenues.

ETA: New Zealand model. OP re-arranged the choices. Now #3.
Last edited by IdRatherBeSkiing; May 4th, 2014 at 02:39 PM..
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#5
There should be some provision for safety. #3
 
Sal
No Party Affiliation
+6
#6  Top Rated Post
decriminalize and ensure the safety of the girls and if needed of their clients..
 
Nuggler
+1
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by SalView Post

decriminalize and ensure the safety of the girls and if needed of their clients..


I thought it was a done deal. Guess I'm not paying attention.
Nothing in Helmetland is a done deal till the fat hooker sings.
Ah well, ............
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
#8
I think FiveParadox needs to return to his Queen avatar. the new one is causing seizures.
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
+1
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

I think FiveParadox needs to return to his Queen avatar. the new one is causing seizures.

I just can't make you happy, can I?
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+2
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadoxView Post

I just can't make you happy, can I?



Sure you can. Run this banner as your avatar for week.



And I'll put any avatar up you want concurrently.

Can you do it Chris?

I double dog dare yuh!
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
+1
#11
Big blue C swallows.... News at six
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
+1
#12
Your new avatar, Sir.

 
Locutus
+4
#13
Legalize...

then tax.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadoxView Post

Your new avatar, Sir.

You're on, let me see that C.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadoxView Post

Your new avatar, Sir.

RCS, I think he got you. LOL
 
Locutus
#16
that is very disturbing chris.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
-1
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiingView Post

RCS, I think he got you. LOL

No he didn't that will be my avatar as long as Chris runs the Conservative logo. Bet he won't.
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
+1
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

No he didn't that will be my avatar as long as Chris runs the Conservative logo. Bet he won't.

Too late. Already applied the logo. I'm willing to put up with it to see Tom Daley bouncing around every time you post something.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
-1
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadoxView Post

Too late. Already applied the logo. I'm willing to put up with it to see Tom Daley jumping up and down every time you post something.

You know Chris, back in the day I used to be as trim and fit as this young lad. Women used to scrub their unmentionables on my six pack.
 
BornRuff
#20
This should be fun to see play out.

It is one of those issues that most people seem ok with in the abstract, but will likely throw a fit if anything is proposed anywhere within their community.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+2 / -1
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by BornRuffView Post

This should be fun to see play out.

It is one of those issues that most people seem ok with in the abstract, but will likely throw a fit if anything is proposed anywhere within their community.

We could make prostitution legal only in neighbourhoods which deploy wind turbines. No point pissing off 2 sets of neighbours when we can just piss off 1 set twice as much.
 
WLDB
No Party Affiliation
#22
I chose the New Zealand option. Robert Picton likely wouldn't have been nearly as successful as a serial killer if that model had existed when he was out.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+1 / -1
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiingView Post

We could make prostitution legal only in neighbourhoods which deploy wind turbines. No point pissing off 2 sets of neighbours when we can just piss off 1 set twice as much.

I can see it now.
 
JamesBondo
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadoxView Post

[font="Times New Roman"] The argument was that Canada’s prostitution laws made the industry unreasonable dangerous for sex trade workers.

Is this not an argument that can be modified for other laws. For example, canada's heroine laws make it dangerous for free needle dispensors to carry out their jobs.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by JamesBondoView Post

Is this not an argument that can be modified for other laws. For example, canada's heroine laws make it dangerous for free needle dispensors to carry out their jobs.

Real heroines don't need needles.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by JamesBondoView Post

Is this not an argument that can be modified for other laws. For example, canada's heroine laws make it dangerous for free needle dispensors to carry out their jobs.

Why do we need free needle dispensers?
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiingView Post

Why do we need free needle dispensers?

How else you going to get your free needles?
 

Similar Threads

118
Ont. court to rule on anti-prostitution laws
by mentalfloss | Aug 15th, 2011
no new posts