In a decision hailed widely by those who live a safe distance from The Trade, Canada’s Supreme Court reaffirms that Canadians pelvic freedoms shall not be infringed.
Just don’t yell “whore” in a firehouse.
In a decision hailed widely by those who live a safe distance from The Trade, Canada’s Supreme Court reaffirms that Canadians pelvic freedoms shall not be infringed.
Just don’t yell “whore” in a firehouse.
Las, you are incorrect in claiming that only when a law is determined to be unconstitutional is it struck down by the court. Were that the case in all situations few would be protesting now. The evidence of the court being on the whole a bunch of judicial activists pushing their own agenda rather than interpreting the law is clear as the nose on your face. Probably the most blatant example was adding sexual orientation as a right even when the writers who were still alive made it clear that it had purposely been excluded. These unelected judges are also very selective in protecting rights that are there in writing. They allowed Quebec to trample on the rights of anglophones time and time ago and also the right to religious freedom in Quebec. They allowed the rights of smokers and gun owners to be trampled on and even removed. So just because this little group of lawyers claim a law is unconstitutional does not make it so.
I was describing the situation as it should be not as it always is. In this case, the SCC did its job very well it has not always done so.
It’s almost like these types of laws get changed just as the muslim population reaches a threshold to sustain the ‘flesh for fantasy’ industry. muslims get to denounce our decadent western society while at the same time buying, selling and trading non-muslim sex slaves that their ‘right hand’ possesses. muslims have a network of mosques for like minded slave traders to work out the now legal practice. Also, muslims love it when the Kuffar willingly degrade themselves for chump change.
As well now in general, muslims can say to the police that the girl or woman raped by them had accepted money for rough sex. Every uncovered woman is considered a ‘Sharmuta’ at best now and muslims will push to allow their freedom of religion to practice their faith as they see fit.
Basically, the Supremes just gave Jihad another legal revenue stream.
Oh, for pity’s sake..
1 – Any clown who thinks that prostitution is not alive and THRIVING in Canada right now lives under a rock. The free tabloids in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver are all filled with ads from scantily-clad women (and some men) advertising their wares.
2 – For the most part, these women avoid prosecution by: a) using the internet and telephone to arrange meetings, rather than hanging out on street corners (avoids solicitation raps), and b) coming to the client’s home/hotel (avoiding bawdy house charges). These escort services do supply drivers/bodyguards, and some even supply health benefits. It’s tolerated because it’s done out of the public eye, and pays at least lip service to the law.
3 – Only the least attractive and desperate women work on the street, where they are subject to police harassment, violence from both pimps and johns, and other exploitation. Since the high end women are already virtually unaffected by the laws, it’s the lowest class of prostitutes which is seeking protection. Seems kinda vindictive to me (“you’re already ugly and unattractive, and the only thing you have to sell is your body, so we are going to make it illegal and dangerous for you to do so; you pretty girls, carry on!”)
4 – Much has been made of the terrible nature of prostitution and how it ‘victimizes’ women, but the stats show that the countries in Europe with the most liberal prostitution laws also have much lower reported incidences of rape. One postulates that men who can easily find sexual release for money are much less likely to use violence to gain the same. (Canada: reported rape per 100,000 is 1.7; US 27.8.. similarly UK/Sweden/Norway where prostitution is illegal have rate incidences of 25 per 100k or higher, while Germany/Austria/Netherlands where prostitution is legal have rates of 10 or less.) Would you rather have legal prostitutes, and have your daughters/wives considerably less at risk for rape, or not?
5 – Finally, what are all the men who are not like SDA readers (i.e. tall, handsome, and sound of mind, body, and spirit) to do for s3x? Are they condemned to a lifetime of celibacy? The men who work on oil rigs for two months at a stretch, and come into town with flush pockets and, er, flushed other parts? Are they supposed to find romance and true love in two weeks? It’s not called ‘the oldest profession’ for nothing; men and women have been doing this exchange for thousands of years, and will continue to do so until the Japanese perfect the love doll.
Like marijuana, the biggest risks from prostitution stem from its illegality. I hope Parliament really does come out with a balanced law. I believe that there is no place in Canada for street solicitation, anymore than we would accept whisky makers selling shots on street corners, or tobacco companies hawking smokes outside schools. The internet provides a place where people interested in these exchanges can meet and schedule their activity without upsetting the public. I don’t think it’s too much to allow the women to do it in safe place, and to allow them to hire professionals to protect them from the occasional customer who oversteps his bounds.
“…Since the high end women are already virtually unaffected by the laws, it’s the lowest class of prostitutes which is seeking protection. Seems kinda vindictive to me (“you’re already ugly and unattractive, and the only thing you have to sell is your body, so we are going to make it illegal and dangerous for you to do so; you pretty girls, carry on!”
You know what – they’re still going to be on the street. Doing business the same old way….with the aame dirty pimps.
Whisky can be purchased legally, but moonshiners haven’t disappeared.
Nice the Dutch finally woke up to the mass degradation to women occurring in the – LAS take note – fully legal brothels of Amsterdam, and are shutting them down.
Prostitution is the exploitation of the weak by the strong, and no decent society can condone it, and remain decent.
Excellent point, Jamie MacMaster.
Legalization of prostitution is mainly about breaking down the traditional moral sense of the people.
Prostitution is a right. No civilized society would stop it. The Netherlands are a part of Europe, a very backwards continent. While they are busy going backwards, the rest of the world-namely New Zealand and Canada-are going forward, to freedom. You can take your arbitrary moral fixation and shove them right up your behind.
This may be unusual, but most of you are wrong and LAS is right. No, Scar, the court is not making law. It’s striking down a law that was unconstitutional. The government is perfectly free to craft another one.
Phantom, you’ve lost it on this one. When you have nothing but insults to provide, you’ve just cornered yourself out of a reasonable debate.
For the rest of you, squeal all you like. The Humpty-Dumpty prostitution laws are dead and there’s no putting it back as it was. You can either snivel about this decision by a bi-partisan unanimous court decision (for you slow learners in the back, that means cconservative as well as liberal judges) or you can deal. Which will it be? This decision sorts out the whiners from those prepared to offer meaningful solutions.
From Barbara Kay, in 2010: “Don’t regulate prostitutes, rescue them.” http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/05/barbara-kay-dont-regulate-prostitutes-rescue-them/
“These women don’t need the ‘harm reduction’ of legal enablement. They need rescue. Their plight would only worsen with legalization, because it would discourage efforts to save them. In his new book, ‘Invisible Chains: Canada’s Underground World of Human Trafficking,’ UBC law professor Benjamin Perrin counters harm-reduction theory with 10 years’ worth of research. Interviewed on CBC’s Cross Country Checkup Sunday, Professor Perrin upended the magical thinking that sees legalization as the solution to the s*x trade’s inherent corruption and peril.”
“Professor Perrin informed listeners that:
– Every country that has legalized prostitution has not only ‘failed miserably’ to curtail trafficking and violence, but there is a clear connection between legalization and increased trafficking and violence;
– legalization increases demand (it’s estimated one in two German men frequent prostitutes);
– legal brothels are no guarantee of safety from abuse, because clients believe they ‘own’ their s*x provider for the hour they hire them;
– and 85% to 90% of prostitutes trafficked into s*x want to escape but can’t.”
“Prostitution legalizers are like drug legalizers. They believe that if a social ill is ineradicable, we should simply redefine pathology as normalcy and declare those caught up in its toils self-respecting and therefore worthy of our respect. . . . I’m taking the opportunity to call prostitution a dehumanizing and morally degraded behaviour now, because I think my right to do so won’t long continue. Since activists are already using the vocabulary of other ‘rights’ and ‘equality’ battles, I predict we’ll soon have to watch our judgmental language on this front.”
Kevin, right and true in every word.
LASsie said: “The new world is not going to work according to old and arbitrary ‘rules’.”
What “new world”, LASsie? Has there been some new species discovered while I’ve been idling in the desert this week? Last I looked men and women were the same imperfect creatures the Roman authorities had to struggle with when the term “fornicate” was coined. A “fornix” is an arch in Latin. Its a probably three thousand year old double entendre since hookers started hanging out down under the arches of the aqueducts in Rome, and of course two legs make an arch.
Dirty jokes and the World’s Oldest Profession never change. The true problem of prostitution has always been the destruction of the people who do it and the people who buy it, in about equal measure. You loudly denounce anyone who brings up the inconvenient results of Holland’s experiment with this issue, as if you were Canute ordering the tide to turn. Inconvenient truths, indeed.
Then LASsie said: “Your comments are worthless Phantom. The world you are describing won’t exist in a year. Legal businesses don’t operate that way. Why do you support violence Phantom? Why are you so violent.”
LASsie, LASsie, LASsie. Legal businesses don’t operate that way? Ever lived near a cheesy bar? Ever so much as visited a strip club? I used to live on a street with a bar on it in Toronto. We had to reinforce our doors to keep the drunks out, had to clean the pee off the doorstep every Saturday and Sunday morning like clockwork. The newspapers are replete with stories of shootings at bars, shootings at strip clubs, beatings at same, women being addicted to drugs and then bought and sold as strippers, etc.
I can just imagine the fun and frivolity of a brothel serving booze, drugs and underage slave girls stolen from their villages in BongoBongo. Or Thailand, more likely. Or hey, remember Romanian StripperGate in Ontario?
All the awesome of a sleazy speak-easy, cubed.
Why do I support violence? I don’t, LASsie. You do. The kind of brothels you are describing are perfect breeding grounds for all kinds of shootings, beatings, and worse. Since I’m in Arizona, I’ll advise you to look up the checkered history of a little town named Jerome, built up the side of a mountain to serve the local mine. Mostly bars and brothels at one time. Interesting history of shenanigans too. Part of the Wild West myth, people getting shot in the street kind of thing.
Personally I’ll go a long, long way out of my road to avoid violence, because I know how long it takes to heal up from it. I don’t support groups or ideologies that have violent policies or use violence as a tactic. Hence my distaste for the Left.
Why am I violent? I’m not, LASsie. I’m a conservative white man. I’d be in jail if I did violence for political purposes. I leave the violence to your crowd, who seem to get a free pass these days.
I just thought you should know that if somebody decides to fire a pistol in the brothel next to you Mom’s house, that bullet is going to sail unimpeded through drywall and stucco for quite a ways. Certainly all the way through one house, at least. Unless it hits something “substantial”, anyway. And by substantial I mean something large that’s made of meat.
That’s a best case scenario, by the way. Rifle bullets can penetrate concrete walls after passing through cars. Or deer. So it might be wise to re-think who you want on your block. Or keep some shell-dressings handy… just in case.
Did you know duct tape is a good field expedient treatment for a sucking chest wound, LASsie? Look in to it, you might need to know that some day, what with the brothel and all.
How many prostitutes or “escorts” do you know or have known personally? Do you think they chose that line of work because it seemed like an excellent career move?
The handful I have known come from broken homes, broken families and just aren’t right mentally. For some reason they think that all they are worth is a $100/30 minutes and on to the next John. That isn’t a worthwhile career choice.
It’s always passed off as a freedom issue. Funny how I didn’t seem to see that in the people trapped in the industry.
No thanks LAS, I won’t be renting a harem, or portion thereof, from you or any other half wit.
You also can’t read because the same was tried in “Zones in Rotterdam, The Hague and Heerlen have shut down in similar circumstances.”
It won’t be freedom ringing…just another less subtle form of money changing, ringing in the cash register.
Your jubilation is quite misplaced, whose chief result is a darker place of abuse; you just haven’t discovered that truth yet.
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Prostitutes’ Union: Great idea if you want to destroy the trade.
Like marijuana, the biggest risks from prostitution stem from its illegality.
Also interesting, the people who step up and practically admit the use of both…makes one wonder how many SC ‘justices’ also are are swayed by their biases.
Irony
The decision was based on the premise that because the pros are forced into an unsafe situation. If this is a factual premise it only holds true if 1 the trade is deemed a legitimate venture and that 2 said trade is entered into by….wait for it….by choice.
Oh, but they don’t have a choice, or so the 9 justices say? If they don’t then premise number 2 can’t be applicable.
So then if this trade is not entered into by choice then its slavery. Whether by the hour or for a lifetime, the judges have just moved civil rights back about a century.
If anyone cares to dispute this, please submit how the slave trade is legitimate or good.
Oh and even if this slavery is legal by judicial fiat, it won’t make the pimps and the preditors go away. Criminals do these acts not because of a law or no law, they do them because they prey on individuals for profit.
The prior state of the law was that prostitution was legal but associated activities were not. As Kevin points out this meant that smart, pretty, girls could engage in a perfectly legal business and did. Dumb, addicted, ugly or simply desperate girls were are the mercy of the streets, pimps and cops.
By striking down the laws surrounding prostitution as disproportionate to the “evil” being prevented, the Court was actually noticing the effect of the criminalization of what was, at its core, a legal activity.
Now, if you do not like the exchange of sex for money you can lobby the Cons to make prostitution itself illegal. This will have two effects: it will subject the less successful prostitutes to greater risk and more harassment and it will, to a degree, raise prices across the board. It will not, of course, eliminate or, in all likelihood, even significantly reduce the incidence of women becoming prostitutes.
If the Cons are unwilling to make prostitution illegal – and I can’t imagine why they would want to as there are not a lot of votes in it – the alternatives are to go for no legal regime at all or to actually consider what law might address the evils so eloquently stated by the moralists above.
“Living off the avails” is a silly way to attempt to curtail pimping. A more sensible solution would be to create an offence which makes it illegal to coerce people – and it is not just women – into the sex trade. Make it a serious offence that could be added to other criminal charges.
The communications offence is just dumb in the context of a legal enterprise and will stay dumb no matter how it is tweaked.
The “brothel” offence is more a matter of municipal regulation than a concern of the Criminal Law. It should not be impossible to restrict locations in a discriminatory way. Think neighbourhood pub regulations.
The happy thought that somehow girls will line up to be licensed, examined and taxed is more than a little crazy. However, it might be possible to require identification and medical certification in licensed brothels. But, realistically, most of the girls will continue to work in the legal, unregulated, sector.
The illusions of using the law to regulate sexuality is a hang over from the moralizers of the 19th century. Both in England and in the United States the use of the law for “progressive” ends lead to the attempt to make prostitution, drugs, pornography and alcohol illegal. In every case, the only thing these laws accomplished to raise the prices to the point where organized crime became focussed on these areas.
The Suppression of Vice and the Promotion of Virtue is the motto of the Saudi religious police and do gooders everywhere. It never works and almost always creates misery, tyranny and crime. The SCC has made the right decision, now lets see if the Cons are smart enough to leave well enough alone.
cgh said: “Phantom, you’ve lost it on this one. When you have nothing but insults to provide, you’ve just cornered yourself out of a reasonable debate.”
What insults, cgh? I merely wished poor old LASsie luck with the known and inevitable results of having a high concentration of hookers around his place.
Reasonable debate doesn’t only take place on the cerebral plane you know, it also includes recorded history. My reading of history indicates prostitution is a pursuit that brings with it criminality, violence, disease and death, in the same way that throwing your garbage in the back yard brings vermin, disease and death. Both practices are common in history, both demonstrated to be really stupid ideas.
Your freedom to dump your garbage in your own back yard ends when my kid gets bitten by a rat. Prostitution is the same type of problem. Women are free to whore themselves out for fun and profit until I start finding condoms, needles and the odd dead body in my front yard every Sunday morning. Talk to property owners down by The Track in Toronto, they’ll tell you some stories that’ll curl your hair.
None of this information and common sense is in any way new or controversial. What’s new is that retards like pill and LASsie feel compelled to ignore it, and otherwise reasonable people like yourself feel compelled to let them.
The downfall of the Libertarian philosophy is extremism. Advocating things that we all know are toxic to human life in the name of “freedom” is catastrophically stupid. The addicted prostitute turning tricks for her fix does not experience her life as “freedom”, yes?
That isn’t a worthwhile career choice.
According to you. It’s not the government’s job to decide or enforce what you consider bad and good career choices.
Did you know duct tape is a good field expedient treatment for a sucking chest wound, LASsie? Look in to it, you might need to know that some day, what with the brothel and all.
It’s a sex house, not a shooting range you idiot. ‘What we’re doing is now legal; I have an urge to fire my gun into the air for no reason’. Do you actually think before you type?
Why do I support violence? I don’t, LASsie. You do. The kind of brothels you are describing are perfect breeding grounds for all kinds of shootings, beatings, and worse.
Only because they are illegal thanks to worthless hypocrites like you, who would use violent force to keep prostitution semi-illegal. Your kind is literally dying off-which is obviously what I meant earlier.
Every country that has legalized prostitution has not only ‘failed miserably’ to curtail trafficking and violence, but there is a clear connection between legalization and increased trafficking and violence;
Perrin and Kay are as full of sh*t as the anti-pipeline protesters are. They will say anything or even believe anything to justify their lies. Fact is, New Zealand and Germany have both had great success with legalization/decriminalization. The rest of Perrin’s ‘points’ are twaddle not worth addressing.
In a year, Canadian adults will be treated a bit more like adults. The yoke of the nanny state will be lighter. Lets use this legal precedent to end drug prohibition and bury nannyism.
Your freedom to dump your garbage in your own back yard ends when my kid gets bitten by a rat. Prostitution is the same type of problem. Women are free to whore themselves out for fun and profit until I start finding condoms, needles and the odd dead body in my front yard every Sunday morning.
Your fantasies are not my problem or anyone else’s problem.
Well Joseph, not quite slavery, there is a transaction. But what a transaction? The John says here’s the cash so I can get rid of my ‘flushed other parts’ as one poster puts it. The other party to the transaction says “here’s my body, unflush away” and all that remains is the shared contempt between the 2 parties to the transaction.
I am ambivalent about this oh-so-predictable decision. I occasionally hire the services of professional women, but they are expensive (see below) and have a vocation for their profession. But they do not need regulating.
Below see here:
There are three classes of prostitute, defined by their level of abuse:
1. The girl on the street, who is abused by the police, the public, the pimp and the john. These often do the job out of necessity. I pity them; their life is difficult.
2. The agency girl, who works for an escort agency. More pricey but more secure. She may be abused/disciplined by the agency, but not by the police, the public nor the johns … who can be dealt with if they are abusive. This is home delivery.
3. The self-employed. These girls often have their own boudoir. They are the most expensive and are the sort that are employed by, oh … say, high court judges, for example. These ladies particularly can enjoy their job, as long as they do not get a boorish client. The boorish clients are not seen again. They are not abused by anyone as far as I can understand. They vet their clients; no drunken slobs need apply; they restrict access by price.
If the state regulates, or even runs, brothels (which I never visit), and taxes the girls’ income, then the state is becoming the pimp.
I always knew politicians are whores, but now to become pimps?
BTW Pimps are the lowest form of life in my universe.
“…prostitution is a pursuit that brings with it criminality, violence, disease and death…”
Many things do that. The error is presuming that making a profession illegal (which it is not now) will eliminate or reduce these things. This is a delusion, and that too is an historical fact. It failed with abolition; it is failing with narcotics laws. The side effects of prostitution are public health problems, and you treat them as such.
What you need to decide is are you arguing on moral grounds or on pragmatic grounds. If it’s the former, there is no meaningful discussion. Otherwise you are in the camp of this nonsense, “Apparently we in Canada are no longer free to decide, through Parliament, what moral values we can choose to uphold as a society.”
It was established centuries ago as a general principle that government had no business enforcing moral values. The Holy Office no longer has enforcement powers. Heretics are no longer burned at the stake. On the other hand, if you do believe in moral enforcement by law, you then have the problem of determining just what it is that separates western civilization from Islamic extremist barbarism. Because the theocracy of Iran is centred on just that principle.
Moral issues are personal. A thing may be legal … gambling, for example, but many people will not gamble as they consider it immoral (side-note: does not apply to Australia where they will bet on anything, as in China). State allowance does not equal state obligation.
Just because a state does not prohibit something does not necessarily make that thing morally acceptable.
So, let’s say the Canadian government legalizes those activities associated with prostitution, BTW prostitution by itself is not illegal, it will not affect the high court judges, nor the likes of me. But, for the masses, it will make Canada a haven for sex tourism and woman trafficking.
This is why I am ambivalent.
LASsie said: “Your fantasies are not my problem or anyone else’s problem.”
Didn’t look up Jerome, eh LASsie? Here let me help you: https://www.google.com/search?q=jerome+az&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Or how about The Track? Try your crime maps of Toronto for red dots along Jarvis street. If you know any property owners along there, ask. Or just take a drive down the street some morning and look for discarded this and that along the street. Not hard to find, LASsie.
You can rage and rail all you want, but you know its all bluster. Hookers bring crime the way poo brings flies. Ancient times right up to now, always the same. Myself and others here have quoted articles and inconvenient facts, I see no refutation coming from you other than howling wind.
Or hey, here’s a novel idea. Why don’t you present me with a link to a study or other bit of proof that supports your argument? Because so far your entire argument is plugging your ears and saying “lalalalalala!”
Yes.
But will they offer gift cards?
On a more serious note, Canada is on a sharp decline as we go down the toilet. Flushed by the collective efforts of the far left who have now taken over the reigns of power.
Poor LAS is very proud. That is, until his daughter enters the “profession”.
In which Phantom demonstrates that he doesn’t know what the difference between causation and correlation is. This the same guy who somehow thinks that legalization will make brothels into shooting galleries. He’s dumb and starting to turn just a little insane.
Hilarious that you’re asking for studies when you don’t have a single one.
Wasn’t there a case in Germany(?), where a young women who once worked in the sex trade industry then left it. Went on to marry, have children and worked in a different non sex-trade environment but was laid off. She was then told she had to go back to the sex trade industry as opposed to getting UE benefits since she had once worked in it and their were ‘job openings there’.
Progress eh?
This is a sorry day for Canada.
Disagree. Businesses should not need licences, etc. This is state fascism. The free market will allow good businesses to survive, while bad ones will go under.
The excuse for business being regulated is that the state bureaucracy knows better than business how to run that industry.
A completely wrong idea – given the incompetence and disinterest of government employees
It was established centuries ago as a general principle that government had no business enforcing moral values.
Who knew gov’t has no business enforcing the law against murder? Along with several other immoral crimes?
Atheists aren’t smarter either. heh
Well, that is it then. We are becoming a society where anything goes.
“Who knew gov’t has no business enforcing the law against murder? Along with several other immoral crimes?
Atheists aren’t smarter either. heh” – stradivarious
The problem with your argument is this. Murder is illegal because it’s unjustified act of taking someone’s life. Murder is not comparable to prostitution because prostitution (consensual not forced) is that act of two consenting adults engaging in sex. Sex is not illegal or immoral. Why should it then be if it involves the exchange of money?
Okay, what was the offensive term?
Does comparing the street working version with the House sitting elected version trigger moderation?
Given the court decision at least some prostitutes know where to base their operations, as near to the home of the judge as possible.
As one wag suggested to me last week commenting on today’s ‘standards’, with tongue firmly in cheek:
“Only gay people get married now….”
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Funding for hookers and a new bureaucracy is already in the works.
http://www.cknw.com/2013/12/19/19757/
Ken (Kulak) “We are becoming a society where anything goes.”
Wrong! You can’t hurt the feelings of self victimized people.
Whether a human being is purchased for a lifetime of servitude or for an hour of servitude its still a sale of a human being.
Last I checked slavery was the sale of a human being into servitude, making no distinction about duration of said slavery.
This is human trafficking and no legal fiction will excuse it.
Whether a human being is purchased for a lifetime of servitude or for an hour of servitude its still a sale of a human being.
Last I checked slavery was the sale of a human being into servitude, making no distinction about duration of said slavery.
Breathtaking speciousness. CORRECTION: slavery is coercive legal prostitution is not.
The prior state of the law was that prostitution was legal but associated activities were not. As Kevin points out this meant that smart, pretty, girls could engage in a perfectly legal business and did. Dumb, addicted, ugly or simply desperate girls were are the mercy of the streets, pimps and cops.
By striking down the laws surrounding prostitution as disproportionate to the “evil” being prevented, the Court was actually noticing the effect of the criminalization of what was, at its core, a legal activity.
Now, if you do not like the exchange of sex for money you can lobby the Cons to make prostitution itself illegal. This will have two effects: it will subject the less successful prostitutes to greater risk and more harassment and it will, to a degree, raise prices across the board. It will not, of course, eliminate or, in all likelihood, even significantly reduce the incidence of women becoming prostitutes.
If the Cons are unwilling to make prostitution illegal – and I can’t imagine why they would want to as there are not a lot of votes in it – the alternatives are to go for no legal regime at all or to actually consider what law might address the evils so eloquently stated by the moralists above.
“Living off the avails” is a silly way to attempt to curtail pimping. A more sensible solution would be to create an offence which makes it illegal to coerce people – and it is not just women – into the sex trade. Make it a serious offence that could be added to other criminal charges.
The communications offence is just dumb in the context of a legal enterprise and will stay dumb no matter how it is tweaked.
The “brothel” offence is more a matter of municipal regulation than a concern of the Criminal Law. It should not be impossible to restrict locations in a discriminatory way. Think neighbourhood pub regulations.
The happy thought that somehow girls will line up to be licensed, examined and taxed is more than a little crazy. However, it might be possible to require identification and medical certification in licensed brothels. But, realistically, most of the girls will continue to work in the legal, unregulated, sector.
The illusions of using the law to regulate sexuality is a hang over from the moralizers of the 19th century. Both in England and in the United States the use of the law for “progressive” ends lead to the attempt to make prostitution, drugs, pornography and alcohol illegal. In every case, the only thing these laws accomplished to raise the prices to the point where organized crime became focussed on these areas.
The Suppression of Vice and the Promotion of Virtue is the motto of the Saudi religious police and do gooders everywhere. It never works and almost always creates misery, tyranny and crime. The SCC has made the right decision, now lets see if the Cons are smart enough to leave well enough alone.
(2nd try posting this – first got hung somehow)
Interpretation?
“Lawlessness for ALL”
Thanks lassie, we know what side of the anarchists you stand on.
Does this not include male prostitutes as well?
And transvestites? Who has determined in this day and age that prostitutes can only be women?
If you think that this decision will bring the street women a step closer to becoming a “Pretty Woman”, you do not know the reality of the sex trade.
Blowing suburban strangers in their minivans is rarely a planned choice. These women almost always have addiction problems, and almost always detest the men who exploit them.
I don’t have the answere to the problems surrounding the trade, but I doubt that this decision will help the woman on the street.
LAS >
“The world you are describing won’t exist in a year.”
LOL
Drug abuse, pedophilia, Al Qaeda, and now prostitution, the Brave New World you fantasize about sounds wonderful L’ass.
It’s almost too bad you’re dumb enough to not realize that you lose whichever way the real world turns.
The left is finally losing its 30 year climb to power around the western world. Sooner or later those that made western civilization the modern wonder that it is, will have had enough, Europe is slowly making the U-turn now. The failing US economy will push aside its freeloading party goers by attrition.
Eventually the perverted freaks that have been living off its back will go away, like you for instance.
Even if you were to succeed and bring in the decadent “free everything” world you imagine, the millions of non western immigrants that you have also brought in will shut you down faster than a full blown f@g rally at Mecca.
The rest of us simply won’t play along anymore, while the newcomers will never play in the first place.
LASsie said: “In which Phantom demonstrates that he doesn’t know what the difference between causation and correlation is. This the same guy who somehow thinks that legalization will make brothels into shooting galleries. He’s dumb and starting to turn just a little insane.”
Yet cgh thinks I’m the one who’s insulting.
Dear LASsie, normally its good manners to first read the linked articles before mocking them. I linked to the -history- of Jerome AZ, the rootin’ tootin’ shootin’est town this side of Toombstone. My point of course is that this “experiment” with brothels, bars and whatnot in no way turned out the way you’re suggesting. Good thing the houses were brick.
Likewise the prostitution district of Toronto is not known for its safe streets and courteous residents after dark. Common knowledge in Hogtown, also googleable in the crime maps and etc.
Likewise as posted above by Deb at 2:36pm, according to the Spectator UK, Holland ain’t doing well with its hooker experiment.
Or you can consider the stews of Dickensian England, the experience of the Irish in New York City around the turn of the 20th Century, or the history of Canada for that matter.
When a correlation closely approaches 1:1 causation should be considered, yes? Garbage brings rats, LASsie. Rats do not bring garbage.
So really LASsie, if you haven’t got some outside agreement to go with your so-far unsupported assertions and blanket rejections of other people’s evidence, perhaps the time has come to admit you have no argument and only post here to be annoying. Like pill.
Above, others have said I’m against prostitution being legal. This is untrue. Prostitution in and of itself, where one individual -voluntarily- sells sex for money, is merely a skanky transaction of goods for services. Its stupid, its morally bankrupt, and its extremely bad for the people involved most of the time. I’ve never met a hooker or a stripper who had all her marbles.
However it is not illegal in Canada and hasn’t been for some time. This is because such a law is fundamentally unenforceable and therefore more of a danger to society than the behavior it is meant to prevent. It is sound policy to avoid such unenforceable laws.
Houses of prostitution are a completely different matter. That is the matter under consideration here today.
You guys dont like it much when the leftists impose their moral values on the public..
Equality and environmentalism are just as unconstitutional as the prostitution laws..
You know passing and supporting laws that reflect a moral position.. DAMN the consequences!
Im here because I dont support that type of thing.. Morality can not be a top down situation.. It always ends up becoming as immoral as whatever it set out to control/remove..
Hypocrisy much?
Europe is slowly making the U-turn now.
BWAHAHAHAHA U-turn to what? From semi-free back to fascism?
The failing US economy will push aside its freeloading party goers by attrition.
Freeloaders have nothing to do with this discussion, tard. The working women are uh working.
The rest of us simply won’t play along anymore
Nope. You lose. The data is clear. People are more and more accepting of gays, gay marriage, pot, etc. You lose.
Well this set’s a new precident in my opinion, and since I can’t beat the scumbags (whores,pimps,judges,lawyers,politicians,and leftist’s anarchist,communis,socialist,marxists.) All I ask for is private health insurance and the right to open and or concealed carry. In conjunction with that the right to defend my life up to and including killing no matter where I am in Canada.
Women brought this on themselves and it is no longer valid to have a good heart or a moral upbringing as a man. to respect and treat women properly. so I say f$%k em! let the pimps beat em let the cops rape em , let the judges and politicians see to there ultimate demise I have zero sympathy for women now , in fact I want womens shelters abolished. As they only serve a purpose for women who are full of crap n lies because according to lass every woman is a whore and proud of it and should be able to do with her body as she chooses if she is to stupid to go with a john who beats her she is also to stupid to be with a man in a relationship who beats her.
Once again all I ask is for private healthcare insurance and the right to open carry or concealed carry to protect my life and my property as well as my family!! that’s is let it all be legal now it’s only a matter of time!
you will reap what you sow
Jay advocates doing away with all laws, since every law is based on a moral.