Any of you legal types understand how a constitutional challenge to the bawdy house law would take place? Does it have to involve a specific case where someone is on trial for breaking that law and who has a lawyer interested in making that kind of a defence? How long will it take to get to the point where the Supreme Court decides if the laws are constitutional?
I guess it's good that Libby Davies can get those committee hearings going again, but usually they spend a few years to produce a report that gets ignored. The last one took six years and then recommended
against decriminalization, because it would "send a message of endorsement of prostitution when there is much evidence of the victimization of its participants" and "may lead to an influx of prostitutes and johns to Canada."
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/1998/12/15/canada/prostitution981215
Wow, what a load of crap. I think we all know the victimizing of its participants occurs mainly because of the criminal laws, not in spite of them. And if the big worry is a huge influx of sex workers to Canada, couldn't we simply limit or stop them from entering the country for that purpose? I believe I've read that's part of what New Zealand did last year when they decriminalized brothels.
