Monday, June 13, 2011

Sex trade on trial: Court considers prostitutes’ right to work safely

It is always dangerous to judge a judge's mind from a judge's questions but ... if Justice David Doherty is inclined to uphold the decision below the Crown is in real trouble:
 
June 13, 2011
Tracey Tyler      
Legal Affairs Reporter     
...
Justice David Doherty wasted little time wading into legal arguments as the federal government's battle to salvage the country's prostitution laws got underway in the Ontario Court of Appeal.

...
The only way Justice Susan Himel's decision can stand is if the appeal court is prepared to find prostitution is a constitutionally protected activity, [the Crown] told the court.

But Doherty told [the Crown] the appeal panel has a problem with the government's characterization of arguments put forward by its opponents, three sex workers who have challenged the legal regime.

The women are questioning why, if prostitution itself is legal, they can't take steps to protect themselves, the judge said.

The sex workers are saying "we're doing something that is perfectly lawful and what Parliament has done is create bunch of laws that put us at significant risk," said Doherty.

That might be like the government making it a crime to "put security cameras in 7-Eleven and 7-Eleven owners came in and said, 'Wait a minute – that puts us at real risk,' " he said.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

The 7-Eleven analogy is really weak. It's more like making Pot legal and criminalizing the sale of bongs.

The Rat said...

In Canada we have severe restrictions on hand gun ownership and use yet we allow semi-trained, glorified guards to carry guns to protect money (well, charitably it may be to protect themselves). If it is reasonable to allow some people to carry guns because their job is dangerous I think it rather ridiculous to restrict speech, and working places absolutely, when both would add real protection for other legal workers.