Landmark ruling on Canada's prostitution laws due today


mentalfloss
#1
Landmark ruling on Canada's prostitution laws due today

Ontario's top court is set to rule today on whether Canada's anti-prostitution laws are constitutional.

Essentially, the Appeal Court is deciding whether three laws put prostitutes in danger. The laws ban brothels, soliciting, and living on the avails of the trade.

A lower court judge struck down the provisions, saying they put sex workers in danger by preventing them from working indoors, screening clients or hiring bodyguards.

The government maintains police need the powers to control street prostitution and investigate pimping and argues that prostitutes make an economic choice they know is dangerous.

Laws put prostitutes at risk, top court judge says

If the Appeal Court upholds a lower court ruling, it would effectively end prostitution-related prosecutions in Canada —pending any decision by the Supreme Court of Canada.

"It's a matter of life and death," said Valerie Scott, one of three women involved in the case. "In what other legal occupation is a worker not permitted by law to take any security measures?"

In September 2010, Ontario Superior Court Justice Susan Himel ruled the laws were fundamentally unjust by making life more dangerous for sex-trade workers. Prostitution itself was not illegal in Canada, though many of the key activities were under the three laws that Himel struck down.

The provisions, Himel said, put prostitutes at risk by preventing them from working indoors, screening clients or hiring bodyguards.

The government appealed, arguing in part last June that the laws are necessary to allow police to control street prostitution and to protect vulnerable women from harm at the hands of pimps.

PM says sex trade 'bad for society'

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has called the prostitution trade "bad for society."

Terri-Jean Bedford, a dominatrix involved in the legal challenge, said the laws discriminate against women.

"If the decision is in our favour, they can take control over their bodies."

Alan Young, the lawyer who launched the challenge on behalf of the women, said the case has "crystallized" the issues around the sex-trade.

"It's the beginning of a dialogue between Canadians, the courts and Parliament as to what we should do about something that we've unthinkingly just prohibited for the last 100 years without really evaluating what we're doing," Young said.

The Appeal Court ruling is to be released at 11 a.m. ET.

Landmark ruling on Canada's prostitution laws due today - Ottawa - CBC News
 
taxslave
#2
Make it legal and taxable. That will make Harper jump on board.
 
lone wolf
+4
#3  Top Rated Post
I think it's stupid to keep pouring millions into fighting that which you can't beat when it would be more sensible to legalize, tax it and eliminate the middleman
 
MHz
+1
#4
Harper also promotes war, the biggest collection of hookers is just outside military bases.
Don't we get around it by calling up an escort agency for a 'room visit'? How did it work out in Nevada? Gas/beer/hooker all in one stop.
 
Vancouverite
#5
I'm a neocon, but I think the law should be struck down.
 
mentalfloss
#6
Ontario's top court strikes down ban on brothels

Ontario's top court has struck down the ban on brothels.

The court says the ban puts prostitutes in danger and they should be allowed to work safely indoors.

However, it has given the government one year to rewrite the law if it chooses to.

At the same time, the Appeal Court says concerns about the nuisance created by street prostitution is real.

So it has upheld the ban on soliciting for the purposes of selling sex.

When it comes to living on the avails of prostitution, the court says the law can be reworded to specifically exclude the exploitation of prostitutes.

More to come.

Ontario's top court strikes down ban on brothels - Canada - CBC News
 
Cannuck
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

The government maintains police need the powers to control street prostitution and investigate pimping and argues that prostitutes make an economic choice they know is dangerous.

Interesting. So if the hookers are making the choice, then they can hardly be called victims. Makes one wonder why the government has considered this a crime.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

So it has upheld the ban on soliciting for the purposes of selling sex.

Is there a ban on soliciting for the purposes of buying sex?
 
Liberalman
#8
Just think the condom industry will grow even bigger.

Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Interesting. So if the hookers are making the choice, then they can hardly be called victims. Makes one wonder why the government has considered this a crime.



Is there a ban on soliciting for the purposes of buying sex?

I think the government do not want the hookers to bother people as they walk down the street like panhandlers do.
 
MHz
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by LiberalmanView Post


I think the government do not want the hookers to bother people as they walk down the street like panhandlers do.


Like at an auction? I don't want to imagine what the 'garage sale prices' looks like.
 
Cannuck
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by LiberalmanView Post

I think the government do not want the hookers to bother people as they walk down the street like panhandlers do.



No, I don't think so. With regards to prostitution laws, a car is considered a public place. I'm pretty sure the feds don't hold that same standard for panhandlers even if they have a federal law against it.
 
mentalfloss
#11
addendum: prostitutes will now be able to hire bodyguards.
 
MHz
#12
To protect themselves from their pimps?
 
Spade
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

addendum: prostitutes will now be able to hire bodyguards.

In cars?

"Pimp my ride" Another potential reality show from a neighbourhood near you!
 
Niflmir
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

No, I don't think so. With regards to prostitution laws, a car is considered a public place. I'm pretty sure the feds don't hold that same standard for panhandlers even if they have a federal law against it.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

Sort of. If the prostitute gets in the John's car (they might need to drive off, I can't remember exactly), then it is not considered to be in public anymore and it is legal. But if the John is talking out of the window and the prostitute is trying to judge whether or not the John is the next Robert Pickton, then that is in public and it is a crime.

I imagine this to be a fairly bad timing for the plaintiffs of the lawsuit, as their aim was to liberalize the laws so that they could safely do their business. If they rip open a whole in the current legal system, Harper may very well stopper it with something much worse. Then again, if he just makes the purchase illegal (and not the sale) then he will make some gender feminists very happy.
 
Spade
#15
Buy, Buy, Birdie" A song for all seasons.
 
Kreskin
#16
Landmark rulings rarely, if ever, strike down anything in its entirety. High courts rule mostly on specific aspects of a previously ruling.
 
MHz
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

If the prostitute gets in the John's car (they might need to drive off, I can't remember exactly),.

Why not make sure the car enters a closed car park and only gets out after the hooker gets out of the car?
 
Liberalman
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

Like at an auction? I don't want to imagine what the 'garage sale prices' looks like.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

According to the ruling the ban on brothels has been struck down so now the hookers can work inside and advertising will be done more traditionally like word of mouth or passing out advertising like they do in the downtown core.
 
Niflmir
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

Why not make sure the car enters a closed car park and only gets out after the hooker gets out of the car?

By the time someone is inside the vehicle, it is too late to notice that the door doesn't open from the inside, and the driver is driving away from that closed parking lot...

Quote: Originally Posted by LiberalmanView Post

According to the ruling the ban on brothels has been struck down so now the hookers can work inside and advertising will be done more traditionally like word of mouth or passing out advertising like they do in the downtown core.

There you are, so Canada is basically just slightly more conservative than the situation over here in the Netherlands (also Germany, for what it is worth).

In Germany, they usually passed laws stating that certain areas at certain times were off limits for street prostitution. I recall one such law in Bonn. It was not common to see advertisements for brothels.

In the Netherlands, I have yet to see an advertisement for a brothel, although a web search will turn them up. The red light district in Amsterdam is a case that they are considering banning. Many cities have already banned public solicitation.
 
lone wolf
#20
They almost advertise on TV now - through Ashley ads and computer dating stuff. Why not? Lawyers do it...
 
WLDB
#21
If they want soliciting for prostitution to be banned because of the nuisance it causes they should also stop the Jehovah's and Mormons from coming door to door. They're also a nuisance.
 
B00Mer
#22
Ontario Appeal Court strikes down ban on brothels

Two sex-trade laws ruled unconstitutional



Ontario’s Court of Appeal agrees that sex workers should be permitted to work in safer locations and pay others to help protect them, but not that they should be able to communicate with their clients in public places.

It struck down two laws Monday, calling them unconstitutional, but upheld the ban on solicitation, saying that prostitutes should not be able to communicate with their clients in public places.

The court released a decision on an appeal of Superior Court Judge Susan G. Himel's high-profile ruling that three provisions of the Criminal Code pertaining to prostitution should be struck down on the grounds that they are unconstitutional.

The Ontario appeal court agreed with two-thirds of Himel's ruling, namely that the provisions prohibiting common bawdy-houses and living off the avails of prostitution, are both unconstitutional in their current form.

But the court disagreed that the communicating provision must be struck down, meaning that it "remains in full force."

The court said it will strike the word “prostitution” from the definition of "common bawdy-house," as it applies to Section 210 of the Criminal Code, which otherwise prevents prostitutes from offering services out of fixed indoor locations such as brothels or their homes.
12-month delay

However, the court said the bawdy-house provisions would not be declared invalid for 12 months, so that Parliament can have a chance to draft Charter-compliant provisions to replace them, if it chooses to do so.

The court will also clarify that the prohibition of living off the avails of prostitution – as spelled out in Section 212(1)(j) of the Criminal Code – should pertain only to those who do so “in circumstances of exploitation.”

The changes to the "living-off-the-avails" provision will not come into effect for 30 days.

Lawyer Alan Young, who represented three women who brought forward the application to have the provisions declared unconstitutional, said the appeal court’s decision had ushered in a "new era" for sex workers.

"I am thrilled that the Court of Appeal has done the right thing," Young told reporters after the court released its judgment Monday.

"They may not have gone as far as the Superior Court judge, but when you actually look at the result, they’ve done the right thing in terms of modifying the law so that sex workers will not face the same risks they face on a daily basis."

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The oldest profession in the world get a reprieve..

Coming soon to a community near you in Ontario.. now if Ontario only taxed this, they would come out of the deep debt they are in.. lol

 
mentalfloss
#23
Already posted Boom.
 
B00Mer
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Already posted Boom.

1. It's today's news.. March 26th, 2012
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...y.html?cmp=rss

2. post a link to the earlier post, or quit talking through your ***
 
mentalfloss
#25
It's only two posts down from yours and lower your douche please.

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/ca...ml#post1566063
 
Niflmir
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by B00MerView Post

The oldest profession in the world get a reprieve..

Coming soon to a community near you in Ontario.. now if Ontario only taxed this, they would come out of the deep debt they are in.. lol

Well they are already set up to tax them essentially. Most freelance professionals already need to declare themselves as independent business owners and declare their income; I imagine it will stay a crime to dodge taxes.
 
B00Mer
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

It's only two posts down from yours.

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/ca...ml#post1566063

huh, and I searched too before I posted. I always do.

That just sucks..

They should merge the two threads.. sorry about that.
 
Goober
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

It's only two posts down from yours and lower your douche please.

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/ca...ml#post1566063

Not really a landmark ruling. The SCOC will make that decision.
 
Kakato
+1
#29
 
B00Mer
#30
who cares, it's just about a bunch of old *****s anyhow..
 

Similar Threads

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