Quite surprising (shocking) that it is a unanimous decision. As previously discussed, however, I fear that it is an over broad ruling, and I predict that the government will almost certainly bring in legislation to ban street walking at least in residential neighborhoods, and some type of anti-pimping law the problem of the later may well be does it sweep in agencies and bookers.
Supreme Court of Canada will release its decision on the Bedford, Lebovitch and Scott
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
I'm not a lawyer so I have to ask this: why can't they just write a new law and declare prostitution illegal?
For an issue as big as this, a government cannot just draft legislation willy nilly. For laws to be revamped, there will need to be some sort of commission or something to make recommendations. It's going to take forever.
The Nordic (or Swedish) model certainly is a possibility, but I feel that is a bit too extreme for Canada, I would hope for narrower definitions of avails (pimping) and of course trafficking. That would technically still be stricter than what is in place today.
Yea good luck with that. I'm not underestimating the power of the moralists, but the world has changed and The Internet has changed the world in turn. There will be a popular revolt if men start getting locked up for non-street sex purchase. Every second guy gets a happy ending massage, fucks a hooker and gets blown. There is no turning back.
Ironically, many of you don't realize this, but it will become a very strong civil rights issue in the years to come. Paid sex ain't going anywhere but up.
Well, what a bunch of prim little dink Young Cons say at a party convention is probably irrelevant.
AT THE VERY LEAST, the government has to bring in a street nuisance law to prevent the Tracks being re established. They have to criminalize "control" and "exploitation" of women by hard core pimps. And they have to bring in some kind of control over forms of advertising and location for brothels. No one wants a huge, lavishly advertised brothel next to a primary school.
If they still want to criminalize johns after the above enactments, they can try. But - to say the least - there will be 2 different philosophies sitting uncomfortably in the same pack of legislative amendments. And the anti-john legislation is going to look stupid and pointless and out of place in the context of the overall scheme and is going to be constitutionally vulnerable to a court challenge.
This is far from a victory boys. Far!!!!
For the next year, it is status quo.
During that time the Conservatives may tweak some things. They may ask for an extension.
Then then will enact tweaked laws.
These will not likely satisfy the Bedford crowd.
Some lawyer will pick up this new case (pro bono) ( it's never free...lawyers likely getting laid by the client) And the new case will wind its way to the SCC over the next 10 years.
Carry on boys....and look over your shoulder.
Dont be afraid of the gov't....... be afraid of the Robbin' pimps!
For the next year, it is status quo.
During that time the Conservatives may tweak some things. They may ask for an extension.
Then then will enact tweaked laws.
These will not likely satisfy the Bedford crowd.
Some lawyer will pick up this new case (pro bono) ( it's never free...lawyers likely getting laid by the client) And the new case will wind its way to the SCC over the next 10 years.
Carry on boys....and look over your shoulder.
Dont be afraid of the gov't....... be afraid of the Robbin' pimps!
I doubt it... that would run against The Charter in exactly the same way that the present laws do.
As to what Harpo and his cronies will do, that could be a "make-or-break" issue for the Conservatives because opinion polls over the years clearly show that the majority of Canadians are not in favor of criminalizing prostitution.
So it seems to me that the whole "sex and drugs" scene is going to change over the next several years and that there will be at least one election between now and them... which opens the door for a broad discussion of these subjects in the public domain.
Quite a boost for "real" democracy...
Perry
Can the Government appeal this to the Federal Court of Appeal? Or can only "some" decisions be appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal? And what is the track record of the Federal Court of Appeal overturning a Supreme Court decision? From what I recall, it rarely happens. Any thoughts?
I'll take that bet, even up. Winner pays the other for a booking with a lady of their choice.
Here is a blurb from the government's response to the 2006 recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights report, prepared by the Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws
As you can see, the government is mostly concerned about exploitation and abuse. To criminalize prostitution itself, either for the women or men, would require a huge paradigm shift and the buy-in of so many different groups, I don't see how it would really be possible and certainly not within a year.
As you can see, the government is mostly concerned about exploitation and abuse. To criminalize prostitution itself, either for the women or men, would require a huge paradigm shift and the buy-in of so many different groups, I don't see how it would really be possible and certainly not within a year.
How many MPs don't have receptionists?
Agreed on the election issue. But no one is going to carry the banner for hookers. It will be comfortably couched in the context of "family values", etc.
Also, how exactly would anti-john legislation offend the Charter in the same way? I am not aware of any analysis that says that procuring sexual services is a S. 7 right. A key argument (accepted by the justices) was that compliance with the law was what was putting prostitutes in danger. Hence, the offending sections were struck.
