Certainly, prostitution is fairly open in major Canadian cities. The cities tend to regulate, in an offhand way, through licencing massage parlours and the like.
And there is also no doubt that street prostitutes are peculiarly subject to violence and cannot easily appeal to police for help because of the laws against soliciting.
That said, the judge's comment that the provisions "force prostitutes to choose between their liberty interest and their right to security of the person," presumes a liberty interest in engaging in prostitution.
And that pre-supposes a right to carry on a business the government has expressly decided to limit.
What about the liberty interest of persons selling cigarettes (lawful but subject to severe limits)? Or, to go a further step, the liberty interest of those who wish to sell illegal drugs (yes, illegal already so different from prostitution which is lawful in Canada)?
The decision suggests there is a right to trade; something new.
Perhaps prostitution should be fully lawful but if so it must be regulated -- merely legalising without more is highly problematic.
Ontario judge strikes down prostitution laws
Shannon Kari, National Post
Tuesday, Sept. 28, 2010
Laws that prohibit street prostitution and operating a brothel have been declared unconstitutional by an Ontario Superior Court judge.
"I have found that the law as it stands, is currently contributing to the danger faced by prostitutes," wrote Justice Susan Himel in a 131-page-ruling released Tuesday.
The judge struck down three sections of the Criminal Code that make it illegal to operate a "common bawdy house," to profit from prostitution-related activities or "communicates" on the street for the purpose of prostitution. The provisions "force prostitutes to choose between their liberty interest and their right to security of the person," said the judge, in finding that the laws breached the Charter of Rights.
4 comments:
The problem is the people who choose to prostitute for a living are going to do it regardless of the law and they are usually never the problem. The people who have to prostitute because of drug addiction are already so far marginalized they won't be helped by this. These were the people Picton and his gang preyed upon and all this does is dirty the water in between and make it harder to spot the differences.
As long as there are "johns" there will be "the oldest profession". Guess how long there will be "johns" for? "Law and Order" bs only marginalizes women further. Jails don't solve social issues - they make them worse.
Keeping in mind that Willy Pickton had close ties to the hells angels who are rumored to dominate much of the city's prostitution, what difference would this ruling make?
I'll take a counter-intuitive view of this.
Because of the internet, the image of the nude woman has basically become a cheap commodity. "Sex no longer sells" said Canadian Business Magazine recently.
There are less strip clubs that operate as compared to in the past. My old home town used to have three of them. There are none that operate today.
Considering that the public at large does not like prostitution (hence why there was political will that basically forced many prostitutes to work in the dangerous streets), if they fully legalize it, they could tax the hell out of it at the same time.
Basically, let the government become the pimp and reap the taxation revenue rewards.
I also think they should do the same with pot.
The Conservatives would be the most credible in creating a tax stamp authority for pot and hookers, because they have built anti-pot and anti-hooker credentials since time immemorial. Let them be the progressive ones in this case, while imposing draconian taxes on these activities.
If the Liberals and the NDP tried this, they would be crucified publicly--and rightfully so.
Just as "Only Nixon could go to China" as the Vulcans used to say, "Only the conservatives can legalize unpopular vices and tax the hell out of it".
Post a Comment