Bribes used to be deductible until they were frowned upon (I don't know if it's in the Income Tax Act or just in CRA's Interpretation Bulletin). So bribes are disguised as promo expenses, etc.
Court Rules Canada's Prostitution Laws Unconstitutional.
- Thread starter Consilio
- Start date
I don't think they'll go that far (I know you're kidding). Probably licensed just like dancers are now, no?
Correct statement. But take heart in the fact that both the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada are liberal and progressive benches.
Your points are well taken. Especially the topless one. My point exactly.
Re what the govt could do next? The charter issue is valid, but open to interpretation AND who may successfully challenge a law based on charter grounds. There are vocal forces in the conservative government that definitely want to introduce a Swedish model here, where the consumers of the sex trade are criminals.
In addition, there is in my uneducated view, a reasonable likelihood that this will be overturned on appeal.
Nonetheless this case has opEned the door for many of the current sex trade las to b challenged on a charter basis
tho actually knowing fuck all about law, I am basically talking out of my ass!!
Well two things. First, technically, they can, they just write "Notwithstanding" into it and have to renew it on a regular basis. It's POSSIBLE to do that, although I can't see it happening over this issue.
Second point is that I haven't seen anyone convincingly argue that prostitution couldn't be outright made illegal. The point of the case was that a legal activity was made harmful by law, I am not sure that argument wins if the underlying activity is made illegal.
I have seen a few people say it CAN'T be made illegal, but nobody has convincingly said why, ideally by reference to a court case declaring that it can't.
I would also suggest that there is also a strong libertarian faction within the Conservative Party that would just as soon see an end to government interference in our lives...
I think they are now toast. They cannot have all the surrounding laws struck down by a court and then turn around and say "Nah-nah. We'll just make the central act a crime."
The courts would be all over them for bad faith. And there is a good argument that the Charter would be involved by making women unsafe by suddenly criminalizing the central act of prostitution, just as it is by the traditional criminalization of avails, bawdy house etc.
The argument would go from "The govt makes doing a legal act dangerous for women by criminalizing all surrounding elements and interactions." to "The govt puts women in jeopardy by criminalizing the victimless act of prostitution which was perfectly legal until the govt acted in bad faith of a Superior Court Charter decision by deciding to cynically end run what the judge wanted."
Guess what the courts will do to the govt re Argument #2.
So notwithstanding a 'notwithstanding law' against it?
Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but how does criminalizing the central act of prostitution put women in jeopardy or make them unsafe?
The same way criminalizing abortion did.
The reality of prostitution/abortion doesn't dissapear by making it criminal. It simply prevents women (and in the case of prostituion, men as well) of doing it as safely as possible by denying them access to the resources and support system they need, and by driving them in the shady corners of illegality (with all the shady characters hanging around those corners and preying on them).
I agree. I think the issue will be split with women as well. It unfair to assume that most women will vote against this. It will definately be interesting to see the direction the public
and government takes on this matter.
I think "not in my backyard" will play a huge role in citizens minds when considering the decrimalization though. I already overheard 2 ladies in supermarket today saying they hope
if this passes through that the government will at least confine it to a specific area away from residences.
Yes, just as with electric power generation, garbage dumps, etc, NIMBYism will be high with this one in Toronto. No one will want their neighborhood designated the red light district. Maybe all GTA brothels will have to be in Brampton where they'll zone anything as OK lol.
Well, Parliament has the right to legislate, but the legislation has to be in accordance with the Charter. My point is that the avails, bawdy house and communicate law were just struck down because they infringed Women's security interests under s.7 of the Charter. If the govt's response to the ruling is just to criminalize more prostitution related stuff, it's an easy road for the Courts to use exactly the same reasoning as in this case to strike down those laws as well.
So a govt response which says "Oh, we'll just make it illegal to be a pro altogether. So there!" will be almost surely cut down in the same way that the other laws were,
the govt will UNDOUBTEDLY appeal. It will take 2 - 3 years for the case to go through the Ontario Court of Appeal to the SCC.
The Tories can posture as the bold, anti crime party. The issue is whether central Canada gives a shit about anti prostitution laws. The Tories win the Prairies automatically anyway. Ontario is where the elections are won and lost.
So a govt response which says "Oh, we'll just make it illegal to be a pro altogether. So there!" will be almost surely cut down in the same way that the other laws were,
the govt will UNDOUBTEDLY appeal. It will take 2 - 3 years for the case to go through the Ontario Court of Appeal to the SCC.
The Tories can posture as the bold, anti crime party. The issue is whether central Canada gives a shit about anti prostitution laws. The Tories win the Prairies automatically anyway. Ontario is where the elections are won and lost.
It is NOT a given that women will support the govt on this. After all, it is a woman judge who struck the law down.
Woman may well sympathize with the plight of prostitutes and think "That might have been me. Or my daughter. Let's try and protect these people." and back the applicant's.
Woman may well sympathize with the plight of prostitutes and think "That might have been me. Or my daughter. Let's try and protect these people." and back the applicant's.
I don't think this issue is a vote winner for Harper or any other party, my guess is that they will try to avoid this at all costs:
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/09/28/15510166.html
Federal Liberals shied away from taking a position on the issue.
"The Liberal Party has had ongoing discussions about and we are still looking at the issue and we welcome judgments like this that may, in fact, enlighten our position on it," said Liberal MP Marlene Jennings.
Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe also declined to comment until he and his advisors have reviewed the issue.
