|
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: Sat Dec 21, 2013 4:43 am Post subject: Supreme Court strikes down Canada's prostitution laws |
 |
|
| Quote: |
The Supreme Court of Canada has struck down the country's anti-prostitution laws in a unanimous decision, and given Parliament one year to come up with new legislation — should it choose to do so.
'It is not a crime in Canada to sell sex for money.'
- Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, Supreme Court of Canada
In striking down laws prohibiting brothels, living on the avails of prostitution and communicating in public with clients, the top court ruled Friday that the laws were over-broad and "grossly disproportionate."
"Parliament has the power to regulate against nuisances, but not at the cost of the health, safety and lives of prostitutes," wrote Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin in the 9-0 decision that noted "it is not a crime in Canada to sell sex for money."
The ruling was in response to a court challenge by women with experience in the sex trade, Terri-Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitch and Valerie Scott that had resulted in an Ontario court ruling that overturned the laws.
The Ontario Court of Appeal later upheld the law against communicating in public, but sided with the lower court in overturning the provisions against living off the avails and keeping a common bawdy house or brothel.
"These appeals and the cross-appeal are not about whether prostitution should be legal or not. They are about whether the laws Parliament has enacted on how prostitution may be carried out pass constitutional muster. I conclude that they do not," McLachlin wrote.
"I would therefore make a suspended declaration of invalidity, returning the question of how to deal with prostitution to Parliament."
That means the provisions stay in the Criminal Code for the next year while the government decides what to do.
In a statement, Justice Minister Peter MacKay said the government would take the time to decide how to address "this very complex matter."
"We are reviewing the decision and are exploring all possible options to ensure the criminal law continues to address the significant harms that flow from prostitution to communities, those engaged in prostitution and vulnerable persons," his statement said.
MacKay also said there are "a number of other Criminal Code provisions" in place to protect sex-trade workers "and to address the negative effects prostitution has on communities."
The women in the case had argued that the law prevented them from safely conducting their business as sex-trade workers, arguing that hiring bodyguards and drivers, and being able to work in private homes or talk with potential clients in public were important to their safety.
"Now the government must tell Canadians, all consenting adults, what we can and cannot do in the privacy of our home for money or not. And they must write laws that are fair," Bedford told reporters gathered in the foyer of the Supreme Court building in Ottawa on Friday.
One of her co-respondents in the appeal said a new law won't work.
"The thing here is politicians, though they may know us as clients, they do not understand how sex work works," said Scott. "They won't be able to write a half-decent law. It will fail. That's why you must bring sex workers to the table in a meaningful way." |
[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-strikes-down-canada-s-prostitution-laws-1.2471572]Full Article[/quote]
Going to be interesting to see which direction the government takes. Will they go ahead and make prostitution itself illegal? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ttompatz
Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Location: Kwangju, South Korea
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 21, 2013 4:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Are they going to arrest every housewife in the country?
Regulate it like any other business and treat it as such. Sex is no different than beer if the parties are willing, consenting adults.
Put the pimps out of business and give the sex-trade workers access to all the other benefits that other employees gain including protection under the various labor acts.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 21, 2013 8:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Remember these words...
Notwithstanding Clause
Nordic Model
I predict that the Harper Conervatives will use one or the other(more likely the latter) to avoid having to allow legalized brothels. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 22, 2013 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Persuant to the above...
| Quote: |
Just last month, the Conservative party policy convention in Calgary adopted a resolution stating it “shall develop a Canada-specific plan to target the purchasers of sex and human trafficking markets through criminalizing the purchase of sex as well as any third party attempting to profit from the purchase of sex.”
|
| Quote: |
Don Hutchinson, vice president of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, confirmed his group has already made proposals to the government.
|
| Quote: |
The evangelical group is looking at what is called the Nordic model, in which the heaviest criminal sanctions are aimed at pimps and johns, not sex workers. The group shares that perspective with Kim Pate of the Elizabeth Fry Society, among others.
|
The Nordic Model might pass constitutional muster, because the recent ruling was based on protecting the safety of the women, not on protecting anyone's right to buy sex.
And you can damn well bet that if it's a choice between a reverse-sexist crackdown on johns, OR allowing legal brothels in Canadian cities, Harper and his coalition of bible-thumpers and suburban soccer-moms will go for the former.
So, in other words, to quote yours truly as quoted on the signature of another (long gone) poster...
Don't start planning your sex junket to Thunder Bay just yet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 22, 2013 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| link |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 22, 2013 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Well, that is interesting. A unanimous decision, too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 22, 2013 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
Remember these words...
Notwithstanding Clause
Nordic Model
I predict that the Harper Conervatives will use one or the other(more likely the latter) to avoid having to allow legalized brothels. |
People were predicting the same for same sex marriages and abortion.
To which I replied that Harper's public stance on those issues was mere posturing for the right wing of his party. (from your link above)
| Quote: |
“We view prostitution as bad for society and we view its effects as particularly harmful for our communities and women, and particularly for vulnerable women, and we will continue to oppose prostitution in Canada,” Harper said in March 2012 after the Ontario Court of Appeal set in motion Friday’s decision by striking down parts of the federal law.
The prime minister has steered clear of social conservative lightning rods during his eight years in power, allowing a free parliamentary vote that affirmed same-sex marriage in 2006 and firmly opposing any re-opening of the abortion debate, despite repeated efforts from within his own Conservative caucus. |
When it came right down to it, he refused to address either question and that in the face of opposition from his own party.
This is more of the same. Harper is first and foremost a political animal and isn't going to pick a doomed fight with (eventually) a foregone conclusion. Of course to placate the hard core of his party he'll huff and puff a bit first. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 22, 2013 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's a general question.
If the state and/or the church is not designating and enforcing morality then who is?
Answer?: Hollywood.
Secular people best wish for the best. Whatever was on Prime Time TV last night is American (etc) Values. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 22, 2013 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ttompatz wrote: |
Are they going to arrest every housewife in the country?
Regulate it like any other business and treat it as such. Sex is no different than beer if the parties are willing, consenting adults.
Put the pimps out of business and give the sex-trade workers access to all the other benefits that other employees gain including protection under the various labor acts.
. |
I agree with this stance. And think it's far better than the current model. Far too much policing of people's free will. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 22, 2013 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
Here's a general question.
If the state and/or the church is not designating and enforcing morality then who is?
Answer?: Hollywood.
Secular people best wish for the best. Whatever was on Prime Time TV last night is American (etc) Values. |
The individual. If the individual wants to damn themselves to hell through loose moral, as long as they aren't hurting others, what business does the state have dictating morality to them. I know you are big on paternal governance, but when the states themselves have questionable morality at best, as do many of the churches, and when moral campaigns mostly empower criminal groups, what is the point of state enforced morality? Sure there are lines to be drawn , and sure it can be regimented, but outlawing something isn't the same as getting rid of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 22, 2013 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
Here's a general question.
If the state and/or the church is not designating and enforcing morality then who is?
Answer?: Hollywood.
Secular people best wish for the best. Whatever was on Prime Time TV last night is American (etc) Values. |
If its Hollywood please let the values be Hunger Games and not Avatar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
littlelisa
Joined: 12 Jun 2007
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 22, 2013 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ttompatz wrote: |
Are they going to arrest every housewife in the country?
Regulate it like any other business and treat it as such. Sex is no different than beer if the parties are willing, consenting adults.
Put the pimps out of business and give the sex-trade workers access to all the other benefits that other employees gain including protection under the various labor acts.
. |
Yes, because every single housewife (and stay-at-home husband) married for money. All of them. And the husbands (or women who earn the household income) married them only for sex. So that's a perfect example of how that's the same as prostitution, and a reasonable assumption that under anti-prostitution laws all those above should all be arrested.
Other than the first sentence, which seems especially ridiculous, I agree with your post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 22, 2013 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Titus wrote: |
Here's a general question.
If the state and/or the church is not designating and enforcing morality then who is?
Answer?: Hollywood.
Secular people best wish for the best. Whatever was on Prime Time TV last night is American (etc) Values. |
The individual. If the individual wants to damn themselves to hell through loose moral, as long as they aren't hurting others, what business does the state have dictating morality to them. I know you are big on paternal governance, but when the states themselves have questionable morality at best, as do many of the churches, and when moral campaigns mostly empower criminal groups, what is the point of state enforced morality? Sure there are lines to be drawn , and sure it can be regimented, but outlawing something isn't the same as getting rid of it. |
Agreed 100%.
Unfortunately some believe that there as to be a higher authority to dictate our morals to us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 23, 2013 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
Remember these words...
Notwithstanding Clause
Nordic Model
I predict that the Harper Conervatives will use one or the other(more likely the latter) to avoid having to allow legalized brothels. |
People were predicting the same for same sex marriages and abortion.
To which I replied that Harper's public stance on those issues was mere posturing for the right wing of his party. (from your link above)
| Quote: |
“We view prostitution as bad for society and we view its effects as particularly harmful for our communities and women, and particularly for vulnerable women, and we will continue to oppose prostitution in Canada,” Harper said in March 2012 after the Ontario Court of Appeal set in motion Friday’s decision by striking down parts of the federal law.
The prime minister has steered clear of social conservative lightning rods during his eight years in power, allowing a free parliamentary vote that affirmed same-sex marriage in 2006 and firmly opposing any re-opening of the abortion debate, despite repeated efforts from within his own Conservative caucus. |
When it came right down to it, he refused to address either question and that in the face of opposition from his own party.
This is more of the same. Harper is first and foremost a political animal and isn't going to pick a doomed fight with (eventually) a foregone conclusion. Of course to placate the hard core of his party he'll huff and puff a bit first. |
Well, we'll wait and see.
Personally, I don't think abortion and SSM are comparable to prostitution as hot-button "moral" issues. Prostitution btings in the whole "law and order" aspect, and you've got the spectre of brothels opening up on every street corner and creepy johns sauntnering down your front street(that massage parlours are already operating with impunity makes little difference to this narrative).
Whereas with abortion, it was just a question of women not having to sit through a commitee to obtain procedures that were already quasi-legal before 1987. And SSM just means that gay couples who are already de facto married can get the same paperwork done as straights. In neither case do you have the same perceived social disruption as with prostitution.
And let's face it, unlike with abortion and, to a lesser extent, gay marriage, no one is gonna turn out to protest if Harper outlaws the purchase of sex. You're not gonna see middle-aged guys parading around with "My P*nis, My Choice" signs, nor earnest middle-class people wearing Parents And Friends Of Johns t-shirts.
[corrected a typo]
Last edited by On the other hand on Mon Dec 23, 2013 6:34 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 23, 2013 12:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
And let's face it, unlike with abortion and, to a lesser extent, ay marriage, no one is gonna turn out to protest if Harper outlaws the purchase of sex. You're not gonna see middle-aged guys parading around with "My P*nis, My Choice" signs, nor earnest middle-class people wearing Parents And Friends Of Johns t-shirts. |
Right. Assuming the legal persecution falls upon the men instead of the women (which means feminists switch from outrage to applause), prostitution has no particularly effective ideological defenders at all. The only groups I can even think of whom are both politically interested and willing to step up to the plate are libertarians, who rarely get their way unless they're acting as useful idiots for corporate interests, and "men's rights activists," who are possibly the least effectual "movement" in history. With prostitutes it's possible to create a pitiable image and the public to feel some compassion for them, but with clients of prostitutes, not at all. |
|
| 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
