Ontario Supreme Court throws out anti-prostitution laws

[Canadave]

Ontario's Superior Court of Justice ruled Tuesday the Criminal Code provisions relating to prostitution contribute to the danger faced by sex-trade workers.

Dominatrix Terri-Jean Bedford and 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.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/09/28/prostitution-law028.html#ixzz10qpX342g

This is pretty huge news, and a very good thing, IMO. It means, for example, that prostitutes will be able to call the police about a bad or dangerous client, and will be able to screen clients in advance much more easily. They'll also be able to unionize, and their income will become taxable.

Prostitution will always exist, and I think this will do a lot to keep sex trade workers safer. Hiding it away or making it illegal only exacerbates the problems.

 

[Data Holmes]

Good move.

 

[sidious618]

Absolutely the right move.

 

[enlisted person]

Does this mean that they will just go ahead and cut to the chase and have the woman come with the room? I think this is the logical next step.

 

[gturner]

Wouldn't the same reasoning apply to organized crime or selling crack? If something was made illegal then the intent was to prohibit it, making it difficult and illegal to engage in. Is it necessarily unconsititional that a law has the desired result?

I feel the court may have overreached, as prostitution was never considered a constitutionally protected activity in the English speaking world yet was certainly known to our forebears. The responsibility of determining what is and isn't illegal falls on the elected legislature, and if their laws are not allowed to inconvenience violators then what's the point of passing any laws at all? They might as well limit themselves to passing resolutions praising hockey teams.

 

[enlisted person]

Wouldn't the same reasoning apply to organized crime or selling crack? If something was made illegal then the intent was to prohibit it, making it difficult and illegal to engage in. Is it necessarily unconsititional that a law has the desired result?

I feel the court may have overreached, as prostitution was never considered a constitutionally protected activity in the English speaking world yet was certainly known to our forebears. The responsibility of determining what is and isn't illegal falls on the elected legislature, and if their laws are not allowed to inconvenience violators then what's the point of passing any laws at all? They might as well limit themselves to passing resolutions praising hockey teams.

So what you are saying is prostitution should be legal as long as the whore does not speak English? We in the USA are a republic which means that the rights of the individual are protected. I think is is as simple as not state enacting a law that protects religion. That is 100% where this is all coming from.Who are we to say who can sell what and who can buy what?

 

[enlisted person]

Wouldn't the same reasoning apply to organized crime or selling crack?

Helllooooo? Selling some crack is what this is all about.

 

[RJDiogenes]

This is great news. There has never been any ethical or practical justification for the criminalization of prostitution.

 

[Canadave]

Wouldn't the same reasoning apply to organized crime or selling crack?

Organized crime invites violence. Crack is an addictive, mind-altering substance that can cause dangerous personality changes.

A vagina, however, is neither of those. Though possibly addictive.

 

[gturner]

So what you are saying is prostitution should be legal as long as the whore does not speak English? We in the USA are a republic which means that the rights of the individual are protected. I think is is as simple as not state enacting a law that protects religion. That is 100% where this is all coming from.

I have no idea what you mean about speaking English. I'm saying that in a democracy the people, through the legislature, generally decides what type of business should and shouldn't be legal.

Who are we to say who can sell what and who can buy what?

Well, what is it you want to buy? How about some white slaves sold into prostitution by the Russian mob? How about 500 pounds of C-4, a liter of anthrax, and 10 kilograms of plutonium?

If the people of Ontario wanted open, legalized prostitution then they would've already legalized it. Instead some judges, in their wisdom, found not only an inalienable right to pimpitude, but also a constitutional right to work at home.

 

[RevdKathy]

I'd reckon this ruling is in the spirit of the intention of the laws.

Laws preventing 'running an immoral house' or 'living on the proceeds of prostitution' were not instituted to make like harder for women. The aim behind them was to protect women from the control of pimps and madams: in the UK prostitution is not illegal - pimping is. In practice, over time, the law has itself become a threat to the safety of individual women, forcing them onto the street instead of enabling them to work in a safe environment. On that basis, the change to the understanding of the law seems sensible.

 

[STR]

Wow. Ontario is much closer to me than Nevada. Excuse me as I dust off the ol'passport.