The question is what will the Conservative base think and Harper knows they will love it. As for the courts, parliament has this power. Even Alan Young says so.
Criminalizing Clients at the Conservative Party Convention in Calgary
- Thread starter CAEC
- Start date
If in the case they're currently considering, the Supremes do not rule that it's the constitutional right of any adults to decide for themselves who to fuck and why, so whether or not money changed hands is no one's business but theirs, then the opening will exist to propose a bill to make buying and or selling sex a criminal offence.
Once that's before Parliament, those opposed run all the risks of being characterized as sluts and whoremongers, and in this Parliament the governing Puffin Poop* party's record suggests that will be its first and primary line of attack. Their consistent strategy of packaging small but objectionable measures in with unassailable omnibus spending bills whose defeat or even amendment could bring down the government has been quite successful, and there's no doubt it's how they would handle this measure.
Anything to hang onto what support they have. Especially if it comes withe the Bonus Opportunity to smear and demonize the opposition.
-------------------
* Googling Puffin Poop will bring up the attack ad on YouTube; it amply demonstrates the gverning Conservative Party of Canada's customary standards of public debate. As in the current scandal about party payments by his chief of staff totalling over a $100K to buy a member's silence, our PM was somehow entirely unaware of what was going on. Meditating no doubt.
Err..... EVERY lawyer's brief in a constitutional case starts with the proposition that Parliament can do what it wishes, as it represents the Canadian electorate. The brief then adds that there is an exception to this rule. The exception is that Parliament cannot contravene the constitution. The brief then states that the impugned law contravenes the constitution and sets out the reasons why the lawyer feels this way.
Every law that has ever been nullified for constitutional infringement has been analyzed this way. It's an academic convention in constitutional law analysis and does not mean what you believe it means.
Conservative governments tend to be reactionary. With regard to social policy, the current government certainly is (at least when they want to appeal to their "base" supporters). They make decisions based on their ideology (which in this case is.. sex should only be between a man and a woman who are married to each other solely for the purpose of procreation. In the missionary position.)
Basically, as I understand it, the case is as follows:
If prostitution is legal, then a number of other laws surrounding it (communicating, living off the avails, etc.) are unconstitutional.
Remove that assumption (by criminalizing prostitution), and the rest becomes a moot point.
Is there anything that could stop such a law? I don't think so. I have my doubts that the Supreme court would ever say someone has the fundamental right under the constitution to sell sexual services.. they will likely punt that one to Parliament. And if such a law were introduced, its supporters would be vocal, while it's opposition would be much more subdued (who amongst us - guys or SPs - would be willing to take a stand and openly and publicly support prostitution? Not many!).
Look at how the government reacted to the Insite case as instructive. (For better or worse) I don't think there will be another safe-injection site opened while the current government is in power.
You're right. I don't think there is any enshrined right to bust a nut.
As for freedom of choice, etc. We have many laws that impose restrictions on our "freedoms". Seat belts, sale of narcotics, firearm possession, etc. It's called social policy.
I was referring to Alan Young telling the court that it would be constitutional to have an outright ban on prostitution. His argument was that since parliament didn't currently have this ban, then the disputed law was unconstitutional. But, when asked, he was very clear that one remedy for parliament was to proceed to institute this ban.
That seems to be the case as d_jedi's outlined it above: That a legal activity can't be so hedged by criminal illegalities as to be effectively criminalized itself. The Charter doesn't permit making something a crime that way.
But the principle that 'the state has no place in our bedrooms' at last made homosexuality non-criminal before there were written Charter Rights, and that principle should be enough to continue to maintain and protect the legal regime we now enjoy. I suggest we all focus on and adopt it as a slogan.
But it won't help without people speaking up.
The idea that "the state has no place in our bedrooms" is one we can all support and certainly makes a lot of sense. But I don't believe it's a legal principle, protected by the Charter of Rights, in that sense. If it were so (to use an extreme example), then the laws on the books regarding incest (like I said.. extreme example) ought to be ruled unconstitutional.
Everyone needs to call their conservative politicians (before the convention)and tell them to vote no on criminalizing the purchase of sexual services. This is a blatantly sexist approach wherein all the sex workers are deemed to be slaves & other types of victims and all of the johns are predators. This is absurd. It is anti-male. The purchase of sexual services has never been illegal in Canada. I doubt we will start now.
The liberals have already floated several similar ideas btw. Joyce murray who ran for the Lib leadership had this in her platform. The NDP is the only party that had sex workers rights accepted as part of it's constitution. They are the most progressive party on this.
Con anti-john resolution is on P. 17 : http://www.cpcconvention.ca/wp-cont...TIONS-1-82-EN-FINAL-VERSION-May-17-2013-3.pdf
The liberals have already floated several similar ideas btw. Joyce murray who ran for the Lib leadership had this in her platform. The NDP is the only party that had sex workers rights accepted as part of it's constitution. They are the most progressive party on this.
Con anti-john resolution is on P. 17 : http://www.cpcconvention.ca/wp-cont...TIONS-1-82-EN-FINAL-VERSION-May-17-2013-3.pdf
They will defend the current laws (no surprise there).. but I strongly suspect they will go further than that if the current laws are ruled unconstitutional.
When they start with the false premise that "Canadians also know that prostitution victimizes women and threatens the safety of our communities," how can they not act if the evil Supreme court wants to corrupt our children by putting a brothel next to every school?! Think of the children!!
Harper will have support from some of the left on criminalizing johns but since gay prostitution is not about men victimizing women, they likely won't care about that aspect.
