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.
I.M.” “seize the cars of drunk drivers on the spot without due process.” This is just it. They are not drunk; they have an arbitrarily chosen blood alcohol level, or they use strong after shave.
Laws set by Radical Activist Groups. And the True Drunks go on causing motor mayhem.
Just like the BS anti-smoking Laws, BS anti-gun laws, BS Anti-GW laws, etc…
I think it’s funny that the judges use that by making it illegal it put’s the hookers in harms way and legalizing it will make it safer…lol then why don’t we just legalize crime period being a criminal is dangerous too..and I’m sure LAS the sh!t for brains would fully agree to this as well.
Las is an immoral person who only cares about himself and his ability to abuse those around him whom he disagree’s with.
By the way las before you mis quote me from my post above lemmi tell you I am against it all but since sh!t faces like you want it that way then I will give it to you. I believe in treating women properly with respect and dignity but if they want to go this route of social engineering ..I’m done fighting hence what I stated above don’t twist my words. unfortunately you will and also misquote me. once again I am only taking this harsh stance against women simply because people like you have won. So you can have your victory. so I quit I’m not fighting anymore.
I love prophecy when it’s so internally contradictory and fact-free. Let’s see here:
“The left is finally losing its 30 year climb to power around the western world”
I see. So 1990 was not the great turning point that you lot claimed it was? There hasn’t been a rampant socialist elected as POTUS, or TOTUS if you prefer? The industrial heart of Europe hasn’t gone insane on renewable energy boondoggles? The current so-called Conservative government in Britain isn’t somewhere to the left of Clement Atlee?
“Sooner or later those that made western civilization the modern wonder that it is, will have had enough”
Interesting. Just what do you propose to do about the demographic problem? You know, the fact that western birthrates are falling toward 1? This big push will come from where, precisely? A handful of you Unibomber types in your shacks out in the woods? And assuming you have solutions for all of the above, just what is your agenda? Apartheid? Bad news, big guy, it’s been tried already. Didn’t work out too well.
“Europe is slowly making the U-turn now”
Hmmm. Just what U-turn would that be? A list of nations impending into bankruptcy that now includes France? A Europe with a GDP growth of barely 1%? A Europe degenerating into the bureaucratic fascism of Brussels? Of course you do have another governance model in Europe. There’s always Uncle Vlad’s recreation of czarist nationalist statism, but I don’t think you really want to go there, do you.
“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.”
See above. If it’s a question of numbers, they may just shut you down. Maybe you might want to rethink this whole apartheid scheme of yours. Could be a few bugs in that program.
“The rest of us simply won’t play along anymore”
You seem to be under the impression that there’s a lot of you. This question of numbers again. Just how many of you are there anyway and why is it you suppose that you have any relevance to Canadian society and politics?
There have been good and bad arguments made by both sides in this thread, but what strikes me at first glance is that those on the pro-legalization side —
1) have a strong tendency to either elide, not perceive, or grossly underplay/underestimate the unpleasantness of the enterprise for the women involved. Yes, there are varying classes of prostitutes, a select group of whom are not in any duress or danger, but mostly it’s an ugly business full of sexual-abuse victims and, often, drug addicts.
2) tend also to elide the negative effects on families, not just the wives and children of some of the men who visit prostitutes, but also the effects on the families – including children – of the prostitutes.
3) point out (correctly) that the most desperate women are the ones working the street, but fail to explain how legalizing prostitution, and allowing these women to legally stand on street corners communicating with some victim-hunting goof — or a bunch of goofs — will make these women safer than when it’s illegal to do so, when cops, and neighbourhood watches, etc., are keeping an eye on them.
The worst arguments by far, though – if you can call them arguments – have been made by LAS, who displays the intelligence of a 14-year-old know-it-all having a palaver with some ten-year-olds without knowing that adults are listening in.
Way up the thread, at 1:12, for example, he stated that under legalized prostitution –
This is an absolutely, completely clueless and demonstrably false statement. In the parts of Holland where prostitution is legal and “regulated”, criminal and violent pimps are heavily involved in the “industry”. Not only do these pimps traffic women and girls flown in from Asia and Eastern Europe (who are, for obvious reasons, willing to turn more of the take over to the pimp than the “domestic” girls), but even local girls are seduced, beaten, threatened, tricked, lied to, etc., by the pimps, to make money for the pimps.
Obviously, not all prostitutes have pimps, but anyone who avers, as LAS does, that pimps wouldn’t exist under legalized prostitution doesn’t have the first clue about why pimps exist, why prostitutes are with their pimps, what the pimps’ MO is, how they attain and use their power over these women, or why drugs, prostitution, and pimping are so often interconnected.
Pimps don’t magically disappear in places where prostitution is legal.
In what conceivable sense is the prospect of “Canadian women” competing “openly” with imported/trafficked/kept/abused third-world prostitutes a good thing for homegrown prostitutes — or as LAS calls them, “Canadian women”? And does LAS honestly believe that if prostitution is legalized, desperate women from third-world countries or Eastern Europe (just “visiting” after two scumbag criminals make an overseas deal and buy her a plane ticket) won’t be willing to hand over more of the take to their pimps than “Canadian women”? That’s strictly La-La-land shit.
Yes, that’s right, you heard it from LAS, folks: The legal freedom for a woman – almost certainly the victim of childhood sexual abuse — to stand on the street waiting nervously to be abused and humiliated by scumbags because she’s suffering from withdrawal and is willing to sell her soul and put her life at risk for drug money, will be “hailed…by all people who actually want freedom.”
How can you even respond to that sort of thing?
Good god. Like I said, there are rational arguments to be made on both sides, but LAS makes none of them, because he lives in his head, not in the real world.
Can’t wait ’til he leaves U of C and starts expanding his horizons a bit. It’s probably going to take about twenty years, but still…
Paul, no one needs to misquote you. Your words unedited stand as evidence of why the sane people in this nation (which is virtually all of them) think that people like you should never have permits to carry guns. No need to add or edit anything. Such pure misanthropy and misogyny speaks volumes all by itself.
I think Paul should kick cgh in the ovaries. heh
Not only do these pimps traffic women and girls flown in from Asia and Eastern Europe (who are, for obvious reasons, willing to turn more of the take over to the pimp than the “domestic” girls), but even local girls are seduced, beaten, threatened, tricked, lied to, etc., by the pimps, to make money for the pimps.
IOW, this is the result of immigration laws that make it difficult to legally immigrate. Could’ve saved you a really long and tiresome rant there. Oddly, this problem does not seem to happen in New Zealand so much.
How can you even respond to that sort of thing?
By admitting I’m right
I’d like to thank all of you who helped make prostitution a legal grey zone for so long. My victims were away from the police and anyone else who could help them, just the way I like it. Maybe they’ll name one of my hunting grounds after you guys-‘The Knight99 Meat Shop’. Preserving the dignity of women is really important. The sex trade is so degrading; much better that people like me just slaughter those in it. I’m sure my victims would be as grateful to you as I am if you hadn’t helped me kill them.
So…the local girls should be allowed to immigrate to their own country…and that would…get rid of the pimps…
EBD
and yes, L-ass is wrong on the “Holand” file as well, as my dutch relatives can attest to
thing is that legal or illegal makes very little difference to the problems in the “trade”, the powers that be need to tackle the problems from a different POV. Pimps certainly need to be curtailed, but you can’t address the pimp problem by legislating pros, and child sex abuse problems in the trade also need to be addressed as a separate issue. There are several issues that need to be looked at as other than a sex trade issue, and/or moral issue.
Why bother with the pretense of having a Parliamentary democracy, clearly Trudopia functions as it was intended… A country “interpreted” by judicial decree as laid out by a mad man from Quebec… thats what Trudopia is all about, no need to pretend otherwise.
You’re right, EBD. Those eager to legalize prostitution do not seem to care much about the unpleasant experiences of the girls and women who are caught up in it. As Barbara Kay wrote: They need rescue, not regulation.
Holland, New Zealand, Germany . . . these countries all found reasons to regret the consequences of legalizing prostitution. Some want them to now focus on the purchasers of sex, as the Scandinavian countries do. That makes sense. These exploited girls are not penalized by the law, but in Norway, etc., the buyers are. So selling s*x isn’t illegal, just purchasing it is. Maybe that’s a good compromise.
http://thecnnfreedomproject.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/02/legal-prostitution-condones-humiliation-on-women/
“Misguided attempts to reduce stigma through legalization mean governments benefit financially from s*x trafficking at the expense of people in prostitution . . . she lived through repeated rapes from buyers and relentless violence . . . To some, the solution is simple – legalize the commercial s*x industry and stigma will vanish. But experts, government reports and academic publications are increasingly confirming what survivors have been saying for a long time – that the legalization or decriminalization of the commercial s*x industry does not reduce stigma, does not eliminate violence and fails to make things safer for people in prostitution. In an effort ‘to put an end to the exploitation of people for the purposes of prostitution: human trafficking,’ the Netherlands introduced legislation in 2000, which legalized prostitution. For the last 13 years, the world has watched this important experiment to reduce stigma and violence. The Netherlands is a known destination for s*x tourism and continues to experience the commercial s*xual exploitation of children and trafficking in both its legal and illegal sectors . . . But the Netherlands is not alone in recognizing the huge failings in what was intended to de-stigmatize prostitution, to bring it ‘out of the shadows’ and to reduce exploitation. In New Zealand, where prostitution and activities surrounding it were decriminalized in 2003, Prime Minister John Key has said this has not resulted in significant reductions in street and underage prostitution. In a government report, women in prostitution also said that the deregulation of prostitution did not reduce violence in the s*x industry and that ‘abuse and harassment of street-based s*x workers by drunken members of the public is common.’ . . . Germany is the latest country to openly discuss the failure of legalization in its national media. Neither legalization nor decriminalization cures the inherent gender inequality that arises when a buyer purchases the body of a woman or girl . . . ‘the buyers who use their political and financial power to buy the younger, poorer, disadvantaged and more vulnerable. The secrecy demanded by these buyers to conceal the harm they cause creates an especially devastating form of stigma: a suffocating silence enforced by fear and shame.’ When governments fail to tackle the demand side of the commercial s*x industry, they not only fail to protect people in prostitution, they also financially benefit through the increased tax income generated from the exploitation of people. But they are not the only ones to benefit. By bringing the commercial s*x industry ‘above ground’, traffickers, pimps, brothel owners and s*x buyers all profit in this billion dollar business. In an effort to prioritize the human rights and safety of people in prostitution, Sweden, Norway and Iceland have adopted the Nordic Model, an approach that criminalizes the purchase of s*x, decriminalizes the sale of s*x and provides exit strategies for those who are being purchased. . . . After courageously exiting the commercial s*x industry, Rachel Moran explains in “Paid For” what is fundamentally wrong about government attempts to legalize prostitution rather than focus on demand: ‘To be prostituted is humiliating enough; to legalize prostitution is to condone that humiliation, and to absolve those who inflict it. It is an agonizing insult.'”
A very simple question should be asked of all those who support legalization of prostitution: If it was legal, would they have any problem with their nineteen-year-old daughter going into the trade?
The writer Spider Robinson once said, through a madam character, “Anyone who criticizes prostitution on the grounds that it’s ‘paying someone to pretend to care about you’ has obviously never flown first-class or gone to a spa.” But he and his character got it exactly backward. You don’t pay a prostitute to pretend to care about you; you pay her so that you don’t have to pretend to care about her.
Some things simply cannot be made into commercial commodities. Sexual intimacy is one of them. The physiological and psychological costs to women — and men too, if to a lesser degree — of the necessary promiscuity are simply too great; it’s part of the reason the industry is so entangled with drug abuse (to manage the traumas), trafficking and exploitation (to guarantee supply can meet demand), and abortion (because contraception doesn’t always work). There are always outlier individuals that can appear to beat these odds, but the wisdom of passing law based on the outliers has always been questionable — a point that is being forgotten in this day and age.
In New Zealand, where prostitution and activities surrounding it were decriminalized in 2003, Prime Minister John Key has said this has not resulted in significant reductions in street and underage prostitution. In a government report, women in prostitution also said that the deregulation of prostitution did not reduce violence in the s*x industry and that ‘abuse and harassment of street-based s*x workers by drunken members of the public is common.’
Key is as full of sh*t as you and Kay. No one is ‘regretting anything’. You see what you want to.
Some things simply cannot be made into commercial commodities. Sexual intimacy is one of them.
Actually, it can and has for millenia. And that makes you so mad. So impotently mad.
Who cares what any 19-year old broad thinks?
Obviously looking for a deep and caring relationship…
By the same token, WHO CARES WHAT LAS THINKS?
Enjoy your lonely and estranged life…
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/12/20/christie-blatchford-loving-pretty-woman-and-other-reasons-i-think-the-supreme-courts-prostitution-ruling-is-right/
Blachford takes her direction on the hooker issue from Hollywood and from a movie that was a ‘paean to prostitution’ no less. Yes doesn’t Hollywood always portray things accurately and aren’t the prostitutes we see on our streets just the Julia Roberts kind of girls who could break out if it wasn’t for those stern finger wagging moralists holding them back?
From Blatchford’s blather;
Maybe it’s because I can’t stand those who would impose their morality on others…
Another one who doesn’t like laws against murder and other immoral crimes.
Or, if they do like those laws, they’re hypocrites, and not worth listening to…
If it was legal, would they have any problem with their nineteen-year-old daughter going into the trade?…Posted by: Stephen J.
..or rather, what would they do when they discovered their daughter was paying off her student loan ‘dating’ a very select few ‘boyfriends’ about their age, instead of a minimum wage job that left her beat at the end of a double shift, with no time or energy to study? A choice she made of her own free will.
Agreements between consenting adults are nobody elses business.
Making anything illegal only ensures that criminals will control it, inflate the price, reduce quality, and exploit workers.
Only drug lords and their pet politicians want prohibitions.
ITT, people who don’t understand the role of government or how morality works.
I have to go to bead it’s been fun crushing you in this coment thread.
I remember that case (it was indeed Germany), but not the part about her actually having been a former s*x trade worker.
But First… The Whores!!
The Supreme Court has ruled many of the laws relating to prostitution unconstitutional and has given Parliament a year to write a new law. Consider that the Court overturned the abortion law in pretty much the same terms almost three decades ago, but the government simply declined to write a new law. It is doubtful that any government will reverse that decision. Perhaps the best course for this government is to do nothing. Let the current laws expire in a year and simply enforce the laws that exist against assault, fraud, tax evasion, etc. Already the activist groups that have sold their bill of goods to the justices are harassing the government to consult them in writing the new law. Perhaps we don’t need a new law at all.
I am struck by contradictory approaches by law enforcement in two major vice-trades. With drugs, we rather glorify the buyers and users but demonize those who supply their needs — pushers, big time suppliers; you know, all those “drug trade workers”. With prostitution, we’re told we need to harass the purchasers.
It may be, however, that by not adopting any law on prostitution, governments can deliver “sex-trade workers” brochures outlining their new tax liabilities (HST, income tax, payroll tax, etc., allow communities to pass environmental legislation to ensure “a full environmental review” before allowing the opening of any common bawdy house.
Fred and Kate have it right: subject prostitution to the same legal restrictions and regulation as we see in other businesses and see how business fares. I suspect that if we treat prostitution like tobacco, we will have far more effective control: a) forbid its advertising; b) require that hideous pictures of STD sufferers be posted prominently; c) carefully police age limits (being particularly attentive to underage sex in the homosexual community) and d) tax the hell out of it.
When these measures raise the price point to a level that only the well-to-do will be able to afford prostitutes, perhaps like gambling and contraband tobacco, various aboriginal groups can add prostitution to their casino-ramas and VLT parlors. That way the chiefs can pimp out their own girls, rather than leave them to the tender mercies of the boys from North Preston, NS.
I glanced at the summary judgment, rather than reading the full write-up. I don’t think prostitution should be illegal, but I’m afraid I’ll find out it’s another one of those right-for-the-wrong-reasons decisions, which are often as bad as being wrong-for-any-reason.
It makes no sense whatsoever that an activity itself is legal but that communication for the purposes of engaging in that activity is not. This should be the deciding issue of the case, not some preposterous notion of what the section 7 concept of “security of the person” means (another one, after the abomination that was InSite two years ago).
If the activity of selling s*x is dangerous, it’s not because of anything the law says but because of criminal behaviour by certain individuals. Those individuals are subject to the law like anyone else, including the consequences when they choose to break it. It’s beyond foolish (and surely legally dubious) to base a judgment on the wrong point of law, including a constitutional clause or sub-clause, but that’s what the Court has done.
Also, it wrote that “many prostitutes have no meaningful choice but to” enter the field, which is just plain preposterous. The Court should be above editorializing of this nature.
The Charter of Rights is a tangled mess, full of mistakes, and sadly the Supreme Court has interpreted out of existence many of our rights already; it should be rewritten from scratch.
The worst case scenario now would be that the feminist lunatic fringe starts pushing for a disgraceful law like the one in Sweden, where the johns can be charged but the hookers get off scot-free. Either selling s*x is legal, in which case the law stays out, or it isn’t, in which both sides will be charged. Anything else is discriminatory. But who believes that the anti-discrimination gang are really against discrimination?
Baby boomer judges at it again. I am so sick and tired of baby boomers!!! They are the scum of the earth.
Parents wont let you live in their basement unless you get a job ? Tell us about it.
The problem isn’t prostitution per se, but rather it’s criminals running it and exploiting the workers because it’s illegal. The working girls appear to support this legislation as a step in the right direction. If they believe it will get criminals out of the business then I defer to their expert opinion.
As for the question about somebody’s 19 year old daughter a brief search for ‘coed sugar daddy’ gives a different perspective.
Struggling to pay for college, more students are seeking out sugar daddies to help them out financially. One such dating website has two million …
Really? I’ve never been offered illegal alcohol in 50 years. Illegal smokes is another thing, but booze?
Not sure what the problem is. Marriage in Canada is nothing more than a long-term prostitution contract. When the contract is terminated the male is forced to pay severe financial penalties in addition to the regular fee for service during the contract.
What male in his right mind would want to get married in this country?
I’m all for the establishment of short-term prostitution contracts in Canada – it will be much cheaper.
“Instead of getting married again, I’m going to find a
woman I don’t like and just give her a house.”
— Lewis Grizzard
The government’s defence was that prostitutes make a choice to enter the trade knowing the risks it entails. The weak reply to this is that many prostitutes are in no position to make such a choice, whether because they are addicted to drugs or enslaved to their pimp. That’s true of some, but untrue of others. The stronger reply is that the risks are the result of, or greatly heightened by, state action; the choice they make is not one they should have to face. Coal mining is a risky business, which people are free to enter or not. That doesn’t mean the state is entitled to forbid mines from operating safely.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/12/20/andrew-coyne-supreme-court-ruling-not-about-legalizing-prostitution-but-making-life-safer-for-prostitutes/
And I’ve never been offered illegal tail in 59 years, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t available.
Yes, I agree. Why are moral values being enforced by unelected judges?
I agree with your post but am still concerned about the effect of increasing sex tourism and human trafficking. I would not like red light districts humming with drunken foreigners.
I agree with all your points as regards the poor women at the raw end of the “industry”. But then I support a law which would allow drug addicts to be enforceably detoxed.
This is an interesting debate going on right here at SDA.
A quick fact and quick reality check.
QF: By my estimate, and supported by an academic study (sorry, lack the reference, but from a lady at the U of Leicester, UK), about 10% of the male population visit a pro each year.
QRC: How many wives would stop making bacon if the husband stopped bring home the bacon?
Comparing marriage to prostitution, one could say it is all about price – dollar per f****”
… but that would be oversimplifying things, of course.
Oh dear …
http://www.680news.com/2013/12/20/exclusive-bunny-ranch-owner-plans-to-open-toronto-location-after-scoc-ruling/
Where are the libertarians here?
Trying to legally stifle prostitution hasn’t done anything positive. There will always be clients willing to pay for it, legal or not. You can still find something immoral without the criminal code becoming involved. If anything this gets people off the street. Ideally their wouldn’t be any prostitutes, but that’s not the way things work.
He intends to open the brothel here and he has a place in mind.
It’s an area that’s sort of on the decline, in the downtown area. And we have a few buildings that we’ve looked at.
–
This will be so much better for the girls/tricks,
keeping the girls penned up like sheep,
plus keeping them sheared, clean, fed, and warm.
Kind of reminds me of Grandpa’s Humane Society.
Canada really does have a heart..
I.M……..It would seem we have SCOC that is full of whores. it must be acceptable to say that because the court just made being a whole acceptable.
Just another example if one is needed, of the urgent need to ditch the present Constitution Act, and to re- write it to make Parliament accountable for the SC’s actions. Maybe the easiest way to do that would be to allow any SC ruling to be overturned by a super-majority (of some degree) of Parliament. If that were the political environment Members had to exist in, they would shortly find it desirable to act in Parliament to fix all other parts of the Federal judiciary, by essentially re-writing the Constitution Act of 1982 in its entirety.
The proper goal of any Parliament is to bury Trudeau, for once, and for all, and this outrage would be an admirable place to continue that honorable cause.
Garry, we’ve already chipped in above. The So-Cons have contributed essentially nothing except a truck-load of bigotry, venom and confusion. At least half of them think that it’s the business of government to enforce morality. And all of it is fact-free. But until they develop some coherence they’re largely beneath contempt on this issue.
Fact is, most of them stand revealed as hypocrites by their own words. They claim to like smaller government, but only so long as it enforces the particular social dislikes and prejudices they advocate. As Napoleon noted long ago, “Never interrupt the enemy when he’s making a mistake.”
Whether an individual is coerced or they act on their own, a human being is being sold. You can beat yourself silly, or whatever else, trying to excuse something that is morally wrong, that will not make it something it isn’t.
Its human trafficking, same as slavery.
Every “argument” you’ve presented is counter to a premise that parents have used to correct their children…..if your friends said it was a good idea to jump off a cliff would you do it?
You want to celebrate this, knock yourself out. But don’t cry to the heavens if in the future you look to the law to protect you or yours if they or you become victims in this new wonderful world.
Well it’s obvious from some people on this thread and their defense of the SC’s decision, that they have never had s3x with a woman (or anyone/thing else) unless they paid for it.
And that fact seems unlikely to change…
Las – “Who cares what any 19-year old broad thinks?”
I almost feel sorry for him…
At least half of them think that it’s the business of government to enforce morality. And all of it is fact-free.
Now we know who celebrates lawlessness, since all laws are an enforcement of morality.
The cogent arguments against legalization are many, and come from countries who have tried the experiment and didn’t like the results. The angry pro-legalization posters on this site try to ignore the evidence, but it’s there, all over the Net, in many articles from those countries. Again, those of you excoriating the “so-cons” are completely ignoring who we “so-cons” are concerned about: the women caught up in this who wish to escape. We couldn’t care less about the weird and wacky “madames” who love selling themselves. We’re thinking about the broken girls and women used cruelly by pimps and clients. Legalization does nothing for them, and it’s clear from the many quotes provided here from New Zealand, Holland and elsewhere, legalization can make things worse. I like the Scandinavian countries’ solution: penalize the purchaser of s*x, not the seller.
Yes nv53. Once again the Supremes have shown that it’s all about their ‘feelings’ towards an issue. Robert Picton murdered prostitutes, many of them native and many of them from broken dysfunctional families. We members of the court feel bad about it and we are determined to do something about it, even if we have to turn the country on its head to do so.
Why am I a mysogynist? How am I wrong in my assertion? I have stood for and protected lots of women and proud to do it but they keep doing things like this that sets there fight for equality back.
I am simply stating that I am withdrawing from trying to do the right thing with respect to women. They can live with the consequences . And all I stated was that I did not want to be on the hook for these decisions. As well I want to be able to defend myself and my family.
Trudeau will become prime minister , and pot will be legal,prostitution will be legal Ect Ect it will all be legal and we will have to deal with that and all I’m saying is that I don’t want to be apart of it. I’m not crazy or mad, nor do I hate women but I am very upset at this and it will only lead to more and more immoral laws and we will suffer the consequences we will be dragged down with those who don’t get it. And I’m saying I don’t want any part of it.
Yes I’m done trying to stand up for women . Everytime I do what I think is the right thing I’m told by women that’s its wrong so I’m done . Reap what you sow. And don’t come to me with your hands out for help.
Making prostitution illegal does not grow the govornment !
And as an aside your right we as a society get to pick and choose what morals we want in our society . And it’s not up to a judge to decide its up for us as a society. Same goes for gay marriage and sbortion they were never voted on by the public and so all I am asking for is a nation wide vote for such issues. That’s all I want a say .
If I can’t have a say if some judge is going to decide for me then I want the right to have private health insurance , and the right to protect my things ,my life and my family. That’s all.