Ont. court to rule on anti-prostitution laws

[cranky]

OP, I am curious to the acuracy of the claims that the sex trade is primarily on the street. In last summer's 'Alberta Business' magazine, they did an article on how most of the industry has moved indoors into 'massage parlors'. And because they are being run by business minded women that need to manage their staff, the staff is often required to choose between their job or drugs. I suppose there are still hookers downtown Calgary, but it sounded like it wasn't the mainstream of the industry anymore.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

What do you think the role of the courts should be in Canada?

The role of the courts is to rule on matters of law. But they have digressed to the point that they will rule on matters of morality, equality, anthropology, etc., ( as it suits them). Prostitution is legal, the communication for the pupose thereof is not. This is not a matter of anything else but commerce. The Courts had no jurisdiction in matters of commerce, but that didn't stop them breaking new ground ruling in just such a matter in Morgantaler v. Canada, (A.G.), where Henry Morgantaler petitioned the courts to make a case in favour of a Constitutional right for abortion on demand, his "for profit" abortion clinics being the major benefitiary, and the taxpayer bankrolling it.

The government has the right to control commercial ventures, and they do. I cannot sell hot dogs on the street, I cannot sell lobsters from the back of my truck. Of course the argument would be that I can get a license to do so, but they are prohibitively expensive. But with a license comes government control, because they have taken on the responsibility, by licensing and through regulation, to protect the public, (not me), from the unscrupulous.

The argument that legalizing the sale of of sex will somehow make the activity safer is simply nonesense. It will be no less risky, given that the clientele will not change. The prostitutes who find themselves in trouble are not the dominatrixes or blue chip madams you see at the courthouses, but the steet level hookers being picked up steet level reprobates, that is not going to change.

Never mind the moral issue that in the government's, (or the courts) allowing the trade in what in many cases will be adultery, (something most cultures find abhorrent), it will also have to shoulder a great responsibility. If it is to be regulated, there will have to be millions of dollars set aside for liability claims. A third party could conceivably claim damages from infections or other hardships caused by no fault of their own, as happens in the food industry, only with far greater risk.

If it happens that prostitutes can ply their wares without regulation or licensing, so it goes that I should be also able to likewise sell my wares on street corners, be it hot dogs or fire wood.

Again, this is a matter of commerce, not freedom of expression, which they can give away for free, legally.

 

[coldstream]

Are you saying that you don't like our Supreme Court, because they apply the laws?

I'm saying i don't like them because the MAKE the laws. That should be the sole province of a sovereign Parliament. A Charter is an ANATHEMA to a Parliamentary system as anything but a statement of principles.

This Supreme Court has imposed abortion, sodomy and it would appear now prostitution as 'inalienable' human right, irrespective of their potentially devastating effects of social cohesion and the family, public health and the original moral architecture of the nation.

The Appeals and Supreme Courts have now fabricated a new morality, divorced from all religious sentiment and structure, out of pure gooey sentiment.. founded on moral relativism, radical individualism and material gratification.

 

[Corduroy]

The Courts had no jurisdiction in matters of commerce

The government has the right to control commercial ventures

The higher courts have jurisdiction to review laws passed by the government. It's called judicial review. It's neither an arcane concept nor a radical one. If the government makes a law regulating commerce and the court feels it infringes on a constitutional principle, they are allowed rule the law unconstitutional.

 

[Unforgiven]

I'm saying i don't like them because the MAKE the laws. That should be the sole province of a a sovereign Parliament. A Charter is an ANATHEMA to a Parliamentary system as anything but a statement of principles.

This Supreme Court has imposed abortion, sodomy and it would appear now prostitution as 'inalienable' human right, irrespective of their potentially devastating effects of social cohesion, public health and the original moral architecture of the nation.

The Appeals and Supreme Courts have now fabricated a new morality, divorced from all religious sentiment and structure, out of pure gooey sentiment.. founded on moral relativism, radical individualism and material gratification.

Having the final say over what does and doesn't happen to your body is an inalienable human right. Not something the government can force on you because of some ignorant moral suggestion of a few who have no personal interest in any of it.

The higher courts have jurisdiction to review laws passed by the government. It's called judicial review. It's neither an arcane concept nor a radical one. If the government makes a law regulating commerce and the court feels it infringes on a constitutional principle, they are allowed rule the law unconstitutional.

You had to go and play the common sense card didn't you?

 

[Corduroy]

This Supreme Court has imposed abortion, sodomy and it would appear now prostitution as 'inalienable' human right, irrespective of their potentially devastating effects of social cohesion, public health and the original moral architecture of the nation.

Neither abortion nor sodomy have been made legal by the Supreme Court. Abortion and sodomy where made legal in 1969 by Parliament.

It's interesting that you would hold such a strident opinion about something imaginary, but since the history of those laws is not well known, you can be forgiven.

However, seeing as you're commenting in this thread which is specifically prostitution and full of information on the laws, you can't be forgiven for not having bothered to read any of it or any of the current news reports on it. The Supreme Court is not be making prostitution legal because (1) this is actually the Ontario Court of Appeal (though it may go to the Supreme Court) and most importantly (2) it's already legal.

 

[petros]

Which are what?

STD's??

The same argument could be applied to one night stands or entering into a new relationship. Should we also expect the government to regulate & control how we conduct our personal relationships & sexual tastes to such a degree that we could be jailed simply by walking out of a bar with someone of the opposite sex?

Or same sex?



Agreed.... many of the arguments that justify these old laws and restrictions are merely based on subjective morals & whatever other type of factual arguments they have to support their side can also be applied to personal relationships or one night stands.

It's a commercial enteprise even if gray area illegal/legal and there are liabilities.

 

[Corduroy]

You had to go and play the common sense card didn't you?

It's less common sense and more fact-based reality, isn't it? Unless you mean it's common sense to base one's opinions on facts. I wouldn't say the practice is that common however

It's a pretty good rule of thumb that anyone who accuses a court of some kind of judicial activism or "legislating from the bench" knows dick all about the law, the constitution or the courts. More often than not the person making the accusation just doesn't like the decision for strictly irrational reasons and these are the only rhetorical tools at their disposable.

 

[TenPenny]

I'm saying i don't like them because the MAKE the laws. That should be the sole province of a sovereign Parliament. A Charter is an ANATHEMA to a Parliamentary system as anything but a statement of principles.

This Supreme Court has imposed abortion, sodomy and it would appear now prostitution as 'inalienable' human right, irrespective of their potentially devastating effects of social cohesion and the family, public health and the original moral architecture of the nation.

The Appeals and Supreme Courts have now fabricated a new morality, divorced from all religious sentiment and structure, out of pure gooey sentiment.. founded on moral relativism, radical individualism and material gratification.

I guess you don't realize that the Supreme Court applies the laws as written and passed by Parliament. Abortion is not legal, it's not illegal. Canada has no abortion laws. Is that the fault of the Supreme Court? Hardly. Your issue is that the Charter, which was passed by PARLIAMENT, makes some of your favorite laws illegal. That's not the fault of the Supreme Court, they didn't write the Charter. They only APPLY it. Parliament passed it, if you don't like it, take it up with Parliament.

Sodomy - I hope you know that anal sex is illegal if one or both people are under 18. So you're wrong on that one. Don't know why it upsets you - is someone trying to force it on you? Otherwise, what on earth does it have to do with you?

You people who complain about the Supreme Court don't seem to grasp that the fault is not in the Court, it's in the laws.

 

[Unforgiven]

It's less common sense and more fact-based reality, isn't it? Unless you mean it's common sense to base one's opinions on facts. I wouldn't say the practice is that common however

It's a pretty good rule of thumb that anyone who accuses a court of some kind of judicial activism or "legislating from the bench" knows dick all about the law, the constitution or the courts. More often than not the person making the accusation just doesn't like the decision for strictly irrational reasons and these are the only rhetorical tools at their disposable.

You had to go play the nitpicking card didn't you?

 

[Corduroy]

I guess you don't realize that the Supreme Court applies the laws as written and passed by Parliament. Abortion is not legal, it's not illegal. Canada has no abortion laws. Is that the fault of the Supreme Court? Hardly. Your issue is that the Charter, which was passed by PARLIAMENT, makes some of your favorite laws illegal. That's not the fault of the Supreme Court, they didn't write the Charter. They only APPLY it. Parliament passed it, if you don't like it, take it up with Parliament.

And let's not forget that, in the end, the legislature can trump most court decisions that rely on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If the Supreme Court does something you don't like and Parliament accepts that decision you ultimately have Parliament to blame because it has the final say. In most cases Parliament doesn't bother going against the court because it doesn't want to risk the political fallout. At which point your blame should really rest on the people of Canada.

You had to go play the nitpicking card didn't you?

Bad habit :|

 

[Unforgiven]

And let's not forget that, in the end, the legislature can trump most court decisions that rely on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If the Supreme Court does something you don't like and Parliament accepts that decision you ultimately have Parliament to blame because it has the final say. In most cases Parliament doesn't bother going against the court because it doesn't want to risk the political fallout. At which point your blame should really rest on the people of Canada.



Bad habit :|

Oh, you're a Nun? 8O Excuse my impertinence Sister. :smile:

 

[Sparrow]

If men no longer need to do what ever it takes to obtain sex from women, women become an endangered species.

It should probably be pointed out that some hookers make more money in a couple of months that most people here make in a good year. While there are some people destitute and living under the weight of addiction that pushes them into very dangerous and risky situations, like getting into someone's car that just drove up, there is also the other end of the spectrum.

In offering an alternative to street prostitutes that is regulated and regularly inspected to make sure compliance is met, efforts to limit the harm done by street prostitution can be much more effective. Set aside things like taxes and all that nonsense. Let's stop people from getting hurt and dying over it.

Don't get me wrong I am all for legalizing prostitution at least the would be protected as well as their customers. If you remember we have already discussed this subject and I was for legalization; My remark comes from the men who will vote against legalizing. I would like to know how many of them pay for sex!!!!

The real question is how can something be legal but paying or profiting from it is illegal! It is as if they had a law that said it was legal to take a shower but illegal to use water.

 

[TenPenny]

Oh, you're a Nun? 8O Excuse my impertinence Sister. :smile:

Loving a nun is okay as long as you don't get into the habit.

 

[Unforgiven]

Don't get me wrong I am all for legalizing prostitution at least the would be protected as well as their customers. If you remember we have already discussed this subject and I was for legalization; My remark comes from the men who will vote against legalizing. I would like to know how many of them pay for sex!!!!

The real question is how can something be legal but paying or profiting from it is illegal! It is as if they had a law that said it was legal to take a shower but illegal to use water.

Thank you for the refresher.

Aristotle said that "The law is reason unaffected by desire". Harm reduction should be the first goal of a law rather than punishment. In this way, less suffering is the end result rather than more. That should be the goal here, rather than to create an environment more dangerous to prohibit people from undertaking the act. That is reason rather than desire.

Loving a nun is okay as long as you don't get into the habit.

Hey good safety tip, that's some heads up play! Ok everyone, hold tight to your britches!

 

[Nuggler]

Loving a nun is okay as long as you don't get into the habit.

:roll:Moannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.

:lol:

 

[coldstream]

Neither abortion nor sodomy have been made legal by the Supreme Court. Abortion and sodomy where made legal in 1969 by Parliament.

It's interesting that you would hold such a strident opinion about something imaginary, but since the history of those laws is not well known, you can be forgiven.

However, seeing as you're commenting in this thread which is specifically prostitution and full of information on the laws, you can't be forgiven for not having bothered to read any of it or any of the current news reports on it. The Supreme Court is not be making prostitution legal because (1) this is actually the Ontario Court of Appeal (though it may go to the Supreme Court) and most importantly (2) it's already legal..

The deformation of marriage to include homosexuals was put in place under the imminent threat by the Supreme Court that they would impose it unless the Parliament acted to legitimize it. The obligation of the government to provide 'safe injection' sites, essentially legalizing narcotic use in some jurisdictions.. is being decided by the courts not by Parliament.

Whichever way the Ontario Court of Appeals rules on the issue of prostitution it will be appealed to the Supreme Court... and because Parliaments are too gutless to use the 'Not Withstanding Clause'.. it will become settled law.. put in place by 9 unelected political hacks. (BTW.. communicating for the purposes of prostitution IS illegal... a legal form that makes its enforcement manageable)

I'll ask you if the legality of abortion or sodomy or prostitution was reversed by a Parliament of Canada.. elected on that platform by the people of Canada.. what do you think the reaction would be. Bev McLachlin our Chief Justice would go into a frenzy of cackling around her broomstick and hexing around her 'Charter' cauldron.

These legal innovations have now been deemed 'rights'.. and now are beyond the ability of the people of Canada to regulate or to define its institutions. THAT is judicial tyranny.

 

[Unforgiven]

It's like a duck quacking in here or something.

 

[coldstream]

I guess you don't realize that the Supreme Court applies the laws as written and passed by Parliament. Abortion is not legal, it's not illegal. Canada has no abortion laws. Is that the fault of the Supreme Court? Hardly. Your issue is that the Charter, which was passed by PARLIAMENT, makes some of your favorite laws illegal. That's not the fault of the Supreme Court, they didn't write the Charter. They only APPLY it. Parliament passed it, if you don't like it, take it up with Parliament.

Sodomy - I hope you know that anal sex is illegal if one or both people are under 18. So you're wrong on that one. Don't know why it upsets you - is someone trying to force it on you? Otherwise, what on earth does it have to do with you?

You people who complain about the Supreme Court don't seem to grasp that the fault is not in the Court, it's in the laws.

In fact the Charter has given the power to the courts to NULLIFY any law passed by Parliament that IT deems an abridgement of the 'Rights and Freedoms'

The lack of any abortion law has in fact made abortion beyond even the realm of regulation. It has become a form of birth control. What is lost is that it involves the murder of an infant, which is deemed too insignificant of warrant legal prohibition.

At one time i would have agreed with you on the point of "what on earth does it have to do with you". Who cares what consenting adults do in private, if they do not make a public spectacle of themselves and it does not encroach on the rights of others. It's their lives. But it didn't stop there. With homosexuality decriminalization was a stepping stone for affirmation, legitimization, celebration.. and encouragement.. and ultimately the complete undermining of the legal institution of marriage.

That will happen with prostitution and drugs as well. It presents a potent threat to the social order, the economy, and the public health. It is especially threatening to vulnerable young people. It'd be nice if you could ignore it, chalk it up to some innocuous 'freedom'.. but that's not the way the world works. It sets in place an agenda. You cannot negotiate with Evil.. it will take all you offer.. and then demand all that you have.

 

[mentalfloss]

You keep saying the same crap as if the last time you got your social conservatism debunked never happened.

Ignorance is bliss, I guess.