|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 7:15 pm Post subject: Prostitution laws struck down by Ontario court |
 |
|
| Quote: |
An Ontario court has thrown out key provisions of Canada's anti-prostitution laws in response to a constitutional challenge by a Toronto dominatrix and two prostitutes in 2009.
Ontario's Superior Court of Justice ruled Tuesday the Criminal Code provisions relating to prostitution contribute to the danger faced by sex-trade workers.
In her ruling, Justice Susan Himel said it now falls to Parliament to "fashion corrective action."
"It is my view that in the meantime these unconstitutional provisions should be of no force and effect, particularly given the seriousness of the charter violations," Himel wrote.
"However, I also recognize that a consequence of this decision may be that unlicensed brothels may be operated, and in a way that may not be in the public interest."
The judge suspended the effect of the decision for 30 days. It does not affect provisions dealing with people under 18.
Federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson and Rona Ambrose, minister for the status of women, both said the government is concerned about the decision and "is seriously considering an appeal."
Dominatrix Terri-Jean Bedford, Valerie Scott and Amy Lebovitch had argued that prohibitions on keeping a common bawdy house, communicating for the purposes of prostitution and living on the avails of the trade force them from the safety of their homes to face violence on the streets.
The women asked the court to declare legal restrictions on their activities a violation of charter rights of security of the person and freedom of expression.
The women and their lawyer, Alan Young, held a news conference Tuesday afternoon and expressed elation.
"It's like emancipation day for sex-trade workers," said Bedford, adding the ball is now in Prime Minister Stephen Harper's court. "The federal government must now take a stand and clarify what is legal and not legal between consenting adults in private." |
A great day for consenting adults!
Full Article |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The judge should not have done that.
| Quote: |
Judge Himel held in effect a one-woman royal commission on prostitution-related laws (running a bawdy house, living off the avails of prostitution and communicating for the purposes of prostitution) and what they have, or have not, achieved. �By increasing the risk of harm to street prostitutes, the communicating law is simply too high a price to pay for the alleviation of social nuisance,� she concluded, ruling it and the other two laws unconstitutional. The arrogance in judging the risk worse than the �social nuisance� is of a large order.
Social nuisance is a dismissive way of framing the harms that the law is aimed at. Prostitution, especially street prostitution, involves victimization, degradation and exploitation of the prostitutes, as justice Antonio Lamer of the Supreme Court said when the court upheld that very same provision (communicating for the purposes of prostitution) in 1990. Young people are exposed to prostitution and related violence, drugs and crime. Then-chief justice Brian Dickson saw the communicating law as a response to the legitimate concerns of homeowners, businesses and residents of urban neighbourhoods. Public solicitation is associated with �general detrimental effects on passers-by or bystanders, especially children.�
These are complicated harms. They hurt the participants, who may be vulnerable for many reasons � addictions, poverty, abusive childhoods, mental illness. They involve neighbourhoods. They involve children. None of these is trivial. In trying to avoid one kind of harm to vulnerable individuals, the judge risks causing others to equally vulnerable people (and some of the same people, at that). Parliament is in a far better position to listen to all the evidence, including how Canadians think and feel about the issue, than a judge. |
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/mps-need-to-tackle-the-prostitution-issue/article1731135/
Judges are not kings (or queens). We already have a Queen. Take it to the MP's. But abolishing the law? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
goniff
Joined: 31 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 5:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It has always amazed me that there is any call for prostitution in Canada when there are already so many enthusiastic amateurs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Although the idea of paying for sex is unsavoury to many people, as one poster said it is the world's oldest profession, will never go away, so regulate it , keep the women safe, pay taxes, and let the Johns proudly walk into their brothel of choice and pretend they are still young men. The law however must protect, minors and those who are forced into being prostitutes.
As for those arguing it is an attack on morality, I find that many who obsess with other peoples sex lives and the imposition of their morals on others are usually fine with torture, wiretapping and war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kepler
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2010 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| As I understand, the act of prostitution is not illegal in Canada but certain things associated with prostitution are illegal such as public solicitation. I knew some American men that made regular trips to Vancouver for the sex. They said it was cheaper and there are a lot less scams such as a different girl showing up than the girl pictured in the ad or the girl asking for a much higher price than was stated in the ad. They also didn't have to worry if the internet ad they were responding to was actually posted by law enforcement. So there might be too many restrictions on prostitution in Canada, but it's still a lot better than the situation in the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
El Exigente
Joined: 10 Sep 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| catman wrote: |
| As for those arguing it is an attack on morality, I find that many who obsess with other peoples sex lives and the imposition of their morals on others are usually fine with torture, wiretapping and war. |
You mean, Republicans? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
