Feds seek to appeal sex-trade ruling on bawdy houses
No surprise -- but will they seek a stay pending appeal???
The Canadian Press
The federal government seeks to appeal sex-trade ruling legalizing bawdy houses, living off the avails of prostitution.
1 comment:
Anonymous
said...
I don't often agree with Liberal Bloggers as a Dipper, but you have my 100 agreement on this in condemning both parties for supporting,this. I've fired off an a message expressing my discontent over this to Andrea at the ontario NDP's website. I encourage others to do the same. This is as much a prochoice issue as abortian. Think about it, women have the right to abortians because they have full soveriegnty over thier own bodies, these laws violate the soveriegnty of not just women body, but soveriegnty men bodies as well. These laws are a bad mix of an antiabortian law in that it violates a persons bodily rights and antiworker safety laws, in that these laws prevent safety measures from being taken. Its like appealing the removal of a law banning hard hats on contruction sites.
It also violates the spirit of the report issued by a special subcomittee on prosititution that was created by special request from NDP MP Libby Davies by Prime Minister Paul Martin. The subcommittee, with one partial desenting opinion from the only Tory on that subcomittee, was in favour of abolishing these,laws. Both Liberals and Dippers on the subcommittee agreed with this position.
1 comment:
I don't often agree with Liberal Bloggers as a Dipper, but you have my 100 agreement on this in condemning both parties for supporting,this. I've fired off an a message expressing my discontent over this to Andrea at the ontario NDP's website. I encourage others to do the same. This is as much a prochoice issue as abortian. Think about it, women have the right to abortians because they have full soveriegnty over thier own bodies, these laws violate the soveriegnty of not just women body, but soveriegnty men bodies as well. These laws are a bad mix of an antiabortian law in that it violates a persons bodily rights and antiworker safety laws, in that these laws prevent safety measures from being taken. Its like appealing the removal of a law banning hard hats on contruction sites.
It also violates the spirit of the report issued by a special subcomittee on prosititution that was created by special request from NDP MP Libby Davies by Prime Minister Paul Martin. The subcommittee, with one partial desenting opinion from the only Tory on that subcomittee, was in favour of abolishing these,laws. Both Liberals and Dippers on the subcommittee agreed with this position.
Post a Comment