Feds to Appeal Prostitution Ruling

[TeasePlease]

From the Star...

"The federal government is looking to appeal a sex-trade ruling that essentially legalized bawdy houses.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson says the government believes the Supreme Court of Canada needs to provide a binding, national decision.

He also says the laws are constitutionally sound.

Last month, the Ontario Court of Appeal struck down the law barring brothels because it said it puts sex-trade workers at risk by forcing them to work outside.

It also reworded the law against living on the avails of prostitution to clarify it would only apply in cases of exploitation.

Nicholson says the Criminal Code provisions denounce and deter the most harmful and public aspects of prostitution."

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...-appeal-sex-trade-ruling-on-bawdy-houses?bn=1

 

[Mister K]

The only reason that I can think of that the Conservatives (in the guise of the Federal Government) would go thorough what will be a a futile exercise (the Crown has now lost TWICE on this issue, once at the original trial and the second time before the Court of Appeal) is so that they can say during the next election that they are hard on crime. The Supreme Court may not even HEAR this case if the initial SCofC review finds that there is no error in law present. They will just refuse to hear it and then the law is gone.

Like the government and DOJ doesn't have enough REAL work to do!

 

[d_jedi]

Does this really surprise anyone?
I'll bet the government moves to make prostitution totally illegal if they lose this appeal..

 

[Aardvark154]

The only reason that I can think of that the Conservatives (in the guise of the Federal Government) would go thorough what will be a a futile exercise (the Crown has now lost TWICE on this issue, once at the original trial and the second time before the Court of Appeal) is so that they can say during the next election that they are hard on crime.

Save as a political statement on your part, what is wrong with that? The amount of money spent on this appeal (which you are saying is for political cover) is a drop of the entire national budget. Further the matter will be settled.

 

[Aardvark154]

I'll bet the government moves to make prostitution totally illegal if they lose this appeal..

No, I completely disagree. This provides plenty of political cover.

 

[Mister K]

Save as a political statement on your part, what is wrong with that? The amount of money spent on this appeal (which you are saying is for political cover) is a drop of the entire national budget. Further the matter will be settled.

In the big picture it is but a small amount, however every little bit counts. I am just as pissed about the billions wasted on the Long Gun Registry, the G20, E-Health and ORNGE (ok, millions in the case of ORNGE.)

 

[mandrill]

The govt is pretty much bound to appeal major policy rulings of this sort and take the issue to the SCC. I wouldn't read too much into it one way or the other.

 

[Anynym]

Does nobody bother to read anymore?

The Government requires clarity on this important question, and the only way to reach a final conclusion is for the SCoC to have their say now.

Or would you prefer to wait five, ten years down the road for a case to reach the Supreme Court and find that the Ontario Court was wrong in their ruling?

 

[someone]

Does nobody bother to read anymore?

The Government requires clarity on this important question, and the only way to reach a final conclusion is for the SCoC to have their say now.

Or would you prefer to wait five, ten years down the road for a case to reach the Supreme Court and find that the Ontario Court was wrong in their ruling?

In addition, if they don't appeal a court in another province could decide the issue differently. At that point it would have to be appealed to clarify the law anyway.

 

[fuji]

No, I completely disagree. This provides plenty of political cover.

So would making prostitution completely illegal, or, more likely, opting for the Swedish model and making only the buyers criminal.

 

[Aardvark154]

So would making prostitution completely illegal, or, more likely, opting for the Swedish model and making only the buyers criminal.

It would not I believe fly in Canada as a whole.

No political party can ever do well if it caters only to the hard core extremists of its base. Those that make the mistake of doing so after gaining power, may manage to squeak out a second victory, but after that. . . .

 

[Aardvark154]

Fair enough, but if the SCC upholds the rulings, then a "legal certainty" has been created that this government can then act-on by creating legislation that effectively overturns all the court rulings.

Do you really believe the government is frankly stupid enough to do that?

 

[afterhours]

Or would you prefer to wait five, ten years down the road for a case to reach the Supreme Court and find that the Ontario Court was wrong in their ruling?

I would much rather they didn't fix shit that was working fine.

Five years from now oral sex without a condom will be a fairy tale that nobody will believe. Prostitutes will be old seasoned professionals, as new girls will be deterred from entering the business. Fuck, it's gonna be bad.

 

[freedom3]

The SCC will hear the case because the case is of national importance.

We should all hope that the decision is overturned. If it stays in force, Harper will make prostitution illegal. His religious base would love that. (In case anyone misunderstands the court decision, it doesn't say anything about whether or not prostitution is legal or not. That is completely up to parliament.)

Professor Young thinks he is a big hero, but, by the time this is over, the situation will be a disaster. Typical socialist.

 

[afterhours]

Do you really believe the government is frankly stupid enough to do that?

Our govt is much more fucked up than you think. Look at the last piece of shit legislation http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/03/06/f-bill-c10-objections.html that they dragged through.

 

[nottyboi]

It would not I believe fly in Canada as a whole.

No political party can ever do well if it caters only to the hard core extremists of its base. Those that make the mistake of doing so after gaining power, may manage to squeak out a second victory, but after that. . . .

Sure they could, they would do it under the guise of preventing human trafficking and exploitation.

 

[nuprin001]

Ugh Im not surprised its being appeal but fuck...it's so frustrating. I feel like somehow Rick Santorum has been injected into the house. Nobody is looking for the government to regulate on these moral personal issues. Regulate industry. Regulate banks. Regulate Emissions and food. Dont regulate my dick....There are bigger issues at hand. Figuratively and literally.

Playing Devil's Advocate, here: all of those examples you cite of it being ok for government to regulate your life is government regulating your money. Isn't that what prostitution legislation is all about? Regulating your money? They're not telling you that you can't screw some college coed you meet online: they're just saying you can't pay her in certain situations. How is that any different than government telling you that you can't pay your banker to do certain banker-related tasks?

If you let government tell you what to do in one aspect of your life, don't be surprised when they tell you what to do in other aspects of your life.

 

[train]

The govt is pretty much bound to appeal major policy rulings of this sort and take the issue to the SCC. I wouldn't read too much into it one way or the other.

I think you hit the nail on the head here.

 

[thebigbang]

Five years from now oral sex without a condom will be a fairy tale that nobody will believe.

Yup, just like some states in Australia enforced subsequent to 'legalization'.

 

[oldjones]

Do you really believe the government is frankly stupid enough to do that?

This government? In a heartbeat. Just look at their years of dedication to getting rid of a harmless thing like the gun registry.

Frankly stupid understates the case.