Supreme Court of Canada will release its decision on the Bedford, Lebovitch and Scott
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
http://scc-csc.lexum.com/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13389/index.do
Held: The appeals should be dismissed and the cross‑appeal allowed. Sections 210, 212(1)(j) and 213(1)(c) of the Criminal Code are declared to be inconsistent with the Charter. The declaration of invalidity should be suspended for one year.
Par. 165 I have concluded that each of the challenged provisions, considered independently, suffers from constitutional infirmities that violate the Charter. That does not mean that Parliament is precluded from imposing limits on where and how prostitution may be conducted. Prohibitions on keeping a bawdy-house, living on the avails of prostitution and communication related to prostitution are intertwined. They impact on each other. Greater latitude in one measure — for example, permitting prostitutes to obtain the assistance of security personnel — might impact on the constitutionality of another measure — for example, forbidding the nuisances associated with keeping a bawdy-house. The regulation of prostitution is a complex and delicate matter. It will be for Parliament, should it choose to do so, to devise a new approach, reflecting different elements of the existing regime.
Held: The appeals should be dismissed and the cross‑appeal allowed. Sections 210, 212(1)(j) and 213(1)(c) of the Criminal Code are declared to be inconsistent with the Charter. The declaration of invalidity should be suspended for one year.
Par. 165 I have concluded that each of the challenged provisions, considered independently, suffers from constitutional infirmities that violate the Charter. That does not mean that Parliament is precluded from imposing limits on where and how prostitution may be conducted. Prohibitions on keeping a bawdy-house, living on the avails of prostitution and communication related to prostitution are intertwined. They impact on each other. Greater latitude in one measure — for example, permitting prostitutes to obtain the assistance of security personnel — might impact on the constitutionality of another measure — for example, forbidding the nuisances associated with keeping a bawdy-house. The regulation of prostitution is a complex and delicate matter. It will be for Parliament, should it choose to do so, to devise a new approach, reflecting different elements of the existing regime.
Seems to me that they will have to re write the laws..don't understand if this is a victory.
But they can no longer criminalize prostitution. The new laws are supposed to be directed against violent and controlling pimps and to set up a licensing and regulatory scheme for agencies.
It is an absolute win for Bedford et al. They got exactly what they have asked for.
But, the big picture is far from clear. The decision basically says that some form of regulation is desirable, and it is up to parliament to construct it. Note that McLachlin specifically said that Parliament can devise a new approach using elements of the existing regime.
Whether its Cons, Libs or NDP-ers, some form of revised legislation will be devised. There's no scenario in which any of the major parties would allow a free for all.
In order to devise effective and workable rules, the legislators will clearly have to get a better understanding of how the industry works. Clumsy efforts to prohibit this or restrict that won't work. So, as I've been saying all along, the industry needs to get its shit together and mount a coherent, consistent and intelligent lobbying effort. We are now at a major inflexion point for the industry. IMO, it's critical that "we" have a seat at the table and get heard by the right people.
But, the big picture is far from clear. The decision basically says that some form of regulation is desirable, and it is up to parliament to construct it. Note that McLachlin specifically said that Parliament can devise a new approach using elements of the existing regime.
Whether its Cons, Libs or NDP-ers, some form of revised legislation will be devised. There's no scenario in which any of the major parties would allow a free for all.
In order to devise effective and workable rules, the legislators will clearly have to get a better understanding of how the industry works. Clumsy efforts to prohibit this or restrict that won't work. So, as I've been saying all along, the industry needs to get its shit together and mount a coherent, consistent and intelligent lobbying effort. We are now at a major inflexion point for the industry. IMO, it's critical that "we" have a seat at the table and get heard by the right people.
LOL.... almost true
I don't think I'll be able to afford the ladies services on my pension cause by the time all is said and done, I'll be collecting it.
The high court struck down all three prostitution-related laws: against keeping a bro
J
J
The high court struck down all three prostitution-related laws: against keeping a brothel, living on the avails of prostitution, and street soliciting.
To me, the most surprising part of the judgement is that it was a unanimous decision.
I had expected that there would be at least one or two dissents.
The fact that it is unanimous and strongly grounded on The Charter will make it very difficult for Parliament to skate around The Charter in drafting new legislation.
The decision is even more "liberal" than I had prognosticated; even the pimping sections were struck down in order to clear the way for a comprehensive re-thinking of the whole subject... but more on that after I read the reasons in full.
As I said above, this is a very intelligent and unpoliticized Court that any civilized and progressive nation would be proud to have... unlike the heavily politicized Court in the USA.
Perry
I had expected that there would be at least one or two dissents.
The fact that it is unanimous and strongly grounded on The Charter will make it very difficult for Parliament to skate around The Charter in drafting new legislation.
The decision is even more "liberal" than I had prognosticated; even the pimping sections were struck down in order to clear the way for a comprehensive re-thinking of the whole subject... but more on that after I read the reasons in full.
As I said above, this is a very intelligent and unpoliticized Court that any civilized and progressive nation would be proud to have... unlike the heavily politicized Court in the USA.
Perry
Pardon me. When or how was prostitution illegal prior to this ruling?
This was entirely about ancillary activities to prostitution. The ruling simply states that the existing regime is too broad and therefore violates certain charter rights. The govt is still free to draft new legislation on pimping (or communications or bawdy houses) that is narrower and within the Charter.
Licensing and regulation are beyond the jurisdiction of the federal government. each municipality will have to come up with what they want to do.
This was entirely about ancillary activities to prostitution. The ruling simply states that the existing regime is too broad and therefore violates certain charter rights. The govt is still free to draft new legislation on pimping (or communications or bawdy houses) that is narrower and within the Charter.
Licensing and regulation are beyond the jurisdiction of the federal government. each municipality will have to come up with what they want to do.
