Supreme Court of Canada will release its decision on the Bedford, Lebovitch and Scott

[TeasePlease]

Well, that is the spirit of debate that I welcome and enjoy!

So let me change my example a little bit and bring to the fore what I am thinking about.

If Parliament were to pass a law that lawyers are free to sell legal services and advise but people are prohibited from buying it... what would you say?

After all, neither prostitution or lawyering have ever been illegal in Canada, and both vie for the claim of being the oldest profession... :Eek:

Perry

Funnily enough, I am rather fond of both lawyers and hookers!

The flaw in your hypothetical is that Parliament has never passed a law to allow prostitution (or legal services). Hence, it's not that prostitution is legal. It's simply not illegal.

I would respectfully submit that this is not simply a difference without distinction. It is an important point because prohibiting ancillary services were intended to discourage prostitution. While it may well be decided in another constitutional challenge, the right to buy/sell sex has not been established.

Then it gets to a question of whether the gov't can regulate what we do with our bodies. Can they? do they?

 

[fuji]

Fuji, I doubt any government has an agenda to emasculate the courts and muzzle them.

You haven't read many conservative party policy positions lately, have you?

The downside to muzzling the courts is that you nullify the Charter entirely and no politically aware person regards that as an acceptable outcome.

The Conservative party believes that Parliament, not the courts, represents the moral values of Canadians. They think that the Liberal, Trudeau charter has pulled Canada to the left, and that this a problem that long term needs to rectified.

They argued that in court...

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

I applaud what this Bedford woman did, but I think she picked the wrong time to do it. Shouldve waited till the Libs were in power

 

[TeasePlease]

The Conservative party believes that Parliament, not the courts, represents the moral values of Canadians. They think that the Liberal, Trudeau charter has pulled Canada to the left, and that this a problem that long term needs to rectified.

They argued that in court...

Well, I don't know if the Cons do, but our elected politicians are supposed to.

I applaud what this Bedford woman did, but I think she picked the wrong time to do it. Shouldve waited till the Libs were in power

It's not up to her to decide on timing. Appeals happen on deadlines.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The SCC has handed the Cons a golden opportunity to tackle a social conservative issue, greatly pleasing their base, but without looking like social conservative fanatics to everybody else.

We'll see what happens.

I was speaking with a politically savvy friend today whose politics are well to the left of my own. Like me, he wasn't convinced the government would touch this. He thought the risk for the Conservatives is the issue makes the party look like religious fundamentalist types, even among voters who might agree with the party on this specific issue.

I took a similar view a few days ago in this thread.

I wouldn't bet one way or the other, but I'm not convinced it's a slam dunk that the Conservatives will aggressively fight this.

 

[Z-GUY]

I saw the news and have to say those "sex workers" were ugly!

 

[afterhours]

Let me put it this way: I don't think that our Courts would tolerate a situation in which something that is legal to sell is illegal to buy. What do you think would happen if Parliament were to pass a law that says it is legal to manufacture and sell automobiles, but illegal to buy them?

Perry

It's illegal to possess crack but legal to smoke it.
Next!

 

[Dream_State]

https://www.facebook.com/terrijeanbedford

Terri-Jean Bedford facebook page!

 

[canada-man]

 

[Bigg_Red]

we have a winner. enjoy the next year boys, cuz the fun is over after that.

Exactly. My bet is they criminalize the purchase of sex.

 

[canada-man]

http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISInfo/Hom...&SortBy=BillLatestEventStartTime&SortDir=DESC

bills before parliament.

 

[op12]

Some legitimate reasons for seeing a sex worker (besides general horniness):

- your spouse cannot have sex due to health issues,
- your spouse will not have sex due to lack of interest,
- you are handicapped and your prospects for sex are lowered,
- you are really unattractive and and your prospects for sex are lowered.

In all these cases a person can get to fulfill a basic human need that is otherwise denied them.

 

[Perry Mason]

The flaw in your hypothetical is that Parliament has never passed a law to allow prostitution (or legal services). Hence, it's not that prostitution is legal. It's simply not illegal.

Parliament never passed a law to say lawyering is legal, either! Are you saying it is not legal, just not illegal?

But your premise is mistaken. The basis of our system is that if Parliament does not pass a law to say some product or service is illegal, then it is legal... especially if it is a product or service with a long history.

Perry

 

[Bigg_Red]

Really? has yet to materialize? he just passed a whole bunch of new drug laws with mandatory minimum jail sentences at a time when even the americans are acknowledging that mandatory minimums don't work.

harper is all about the moral end game pandering to the worst in potential conservative voters.

The Big bad scary Stephen Harper with his much hyped 'Hidden Agenda' ......after seven years....... Has yet to materialize.

And even after this rework of a constitutional botch job by the Liberals years ago....Harper is gonna disappoint those hoping for a 'hidden agenda'

 

[Perry Mason]

It's illegal to possess crack but legal to smoke it.

You will never pass your Bar Admissions, friend.

Or the common sense exams, either... please tell me how you can smoke it without possessing it.

Or are you talking about possession in a holographic or virtual world?

Perry

 

[Perry Mason]

Funnily enough, I am rather fond of both lawyers and hookers!

I don't know why, but that reminds me of an old joke.

Do you know the difference between a rooster and a lawyer (equally applicable to a rooster and a hooker!)?

A rooster clucks defiance...

Perry

 

[Aardvark154]

I would be very surprised if the Ministry of Justice has not already prepared draft legislation, it isn't as though they haven't had the time or this is a from far left field surprise.

 

[Aardvark154]

I am a lawyer. The new law would need to go through the same 5 year court process that this case went through. Plus a john would need to be the one who fights it. I doubt many would step up.

Yes, but you and I both know for this type case it only takes one.

 

[afterhours]

You will never pass your Bar Admissions, friend.

Or the common sense exams, either... please tell me how you can smoke it without possessing it.

Or are you talking about possession in a holographic or virtual world?

Perry

Whoa dude I don't know how you passed your bar exam. Is that news to you that consumption of a narcotic is not a crime in Canada (or in Spain for example)?

Or are you from US and A? That would explain it.

 

[Perry Mason]

Whoa dude I don't know how you passed your bar exam. Is that news to you that smoking crack is not a crime in Canada (or in Spain for example)?

Or are you from US and A? That would explain it.

That's right... don't address the point or question... just skate around it!

Perry