Supreme Court unanimously strikes down Canada's anti-prostitution laws

[Phaedrus 209521]

Well, it's awesome news... for now. Happy Christmas to us! It's somewhat annoying that the laws still stand for another year, but I don't really think that's unreasonable; given that the laws of the land are supposed to be made by the legislature after proper consideration and reasoned debate (yeah, right), it seems reasonable to allow them a chance to do their job.

 

Alas, the hard part now begins. The great thing about the courts is that they run on evidence; if you want a court to believe something, you have to be able to prove it, and to knock down the evidence and arguments that the other side brings. The judgement, when it's made, gives due weight to the evidence presented. The fact that this was a 9-0 decision indicates that this has been done in spectacular style, for now. But... the next bit of the battle is in the political arena, and here facts must do battle with rumour and lies and deceit and misinformation and ignorance. That's much harder.

 

The big problem at this stage is that although most people probably aren't interested in policing what consenting adults get up to in private, sex work is very much associated with people-trafficking and exploitation in the eyes of many people. Never mind that other industries employ many more trafficked and enslaved people (Hello, construction! Hi there, agriculture!); never mind that there are plenty of sex workers who are doing precisely what they want to be doing and are forced by nobody; sex work is what frequently grabs the headlines. There's a lot of people who work very hard to ensure this link remains in the minds of the population at large, and if it isn't broken then there's a good chance that whatever legislation finally comes through is likely to be yet another attempt to marginalize everyone involved in the industry and push the whole lot back into the shadows. There's also a lot of people who simply can't understand that making an entire industry illegal does nothing but help those who would exploit others, and prevent victims from seeking help from others. These things need to be understood better by the average person if the political debate is to be won.

[fortunateone 156618]

I think the current policing, so to speak, has always been at the municipal level, and to that point, the laws weren't being strictly enforced anyway. So the federal government can impose whatever they want (not that we want that) it will still come down to what the local police are willing to spend their time and resources on, and they've proven over many years, prostitution related charges are not that thing.

 

Even if they went Nordic model, the police then would still focus as they do now on street workers and their clients, except with that model, they would have to let the street workers carry on doing what they are doing, and apprehend the clients only. Which I am assuming they will figure is a waste of time, since it isn't the clients looking that the public objects to, it is the SWs themselves hanging around on the corners and in front of their businesses. The nordic model would be counterproductive to removing SWs from the street, only the clients would be discouraged. .

 

I think someone asked what will change given that the laws were struck down, and my answer to that would be nothing. The current laws are being broken daily and willfully all the time. Sps provide incall, that's illegal with the existing law. Without the law, the only change will be the sps provide the incall legally. So no change.

 

I'm not sure of how to describe it. It's maybe like marijuana, technically illegal to sell, buy or use, but people do anyway. When it is not technically illegal to sell, buy or use, people carry on doing it. Nothing changes for the general public, or the people using it lol.

 

People seem to think there will be huge differences, but basically sps are currently working the way they want to, even if it is technically breaking the law. Some sps who did not want to break the laws will now be offering incalls in the future, so that part would change for them. I think there might be 6 total across the country who made the conscious decision to never do incalls lol

[Guest Ou**or**n]

What concerns me is that the political ambitions of the conservatives to ban prostitution align wonderfully with the radical left abolitionists. They'll try to enact the Nordic model under the 'its inherently violence against women' arguement but not likely fund any of the programs that went along with the law in Sweden. The only thing that will stop is if their own lawyers tell them it won't fly.

 

Harper holds his caucus in check on abortion because he knows it is widely supported. This is not the case with prostitution and I see him allowing his conservative members to blow off steam by attempting to legislate strongly in this area.

 

This is one of those moments in judicial history that I wished happened during the reign of a minority government.

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

Well, it's awesome news... for now. Happy Christmas to us! It's somewhat annoying that the laws still stand for another year, but I don't really think that's unreasonable; given that the laws of the land are supposed to be made by the legislature after proper consideration and reasoned debate (yeah, right), it seems reasonable to allow them a chance to do their job.

 

With all respect, I don't see it reasonable at all for the highest court to find a law illegal yet fail to declare its invalidity immediately. If the Courts are not doing this then who in this unjust world should do.

[Guest Ou**or**n]

And so it begins...

 

Legalize prostitution? Are we nuts?

 

What if Ottawa now criminalizes prostitution?

[Two Thirty 1422]

The SCC ruling on Bedford was a long time coming. Everyone who had a hand in this outcome deserve our thanks, and have earned at least this day to pause and celebrate it.

 

But to paraphrase a number of comments in this thread, only this battle has been won. The war, however, goes on.

 

The whole matter is incredibly divisive; the views of the far right and the far left will never reconcile. With the Harper Government, it's not hard to imagine how they're scheming about how to leverage the emotional response to prostitution and this SCC ruling, and use it as a wedge issue in the next election. After all, anything sex plays waay more sensationally in the media than mere matters of truth, lies and fraud in e.g. the Senate.

 

Let's remember also that the Tories won a majority government despite receiving a minority of the popular vote! So it shouldn't surprise anyone that as a wedge issue, it could suit Harper's purposes to return to power just fine.

 

The key to winning over the SCC was all about being rational. For the first time ever, Canada is recognizing prostitutes as people who have a constitutional right to life, liberty and security, just like the rest of us. Let's not lose sight of that, and going forward, I encourage everyone to do their part to make sure that others don't lose sight of that either.

[drlove 37204]

This is one of those moments in judicial history that I wished happened during the reign of a minority government.

 

Exactly... or, that the decision had been delayed until after the 2015 election when (hopefully) the Liberals would be in power.

[redmana2 2754]

Exactly... or, that the decision had been delayed until after the 2015 election when (hopefully) the Liberals would be in power.

 

Yeah. The timing of this and who is in power could ultimately shape the industry for a very long time. As much as the Liberals might criticize Harper for whatever new legislation he creates I doubt they'll reopen the issue later. It's a hot potato with nothing but political downsides. Lets hope they come up with something palatable, because we'll be living under that regime for another hundred years, or until a court over turns it.

[Phaedrus 209521]

With all respect, I don't see it reasonable at all for the highest court to find a law illegal yet fail to declare its invalidity immediately. If the Courts are not doing this then who in this unjust world should do.

 

They haven't found the law illegal. They've found the existing laws inconsistent and unreasonable; given that the exchange of sex for money is legal, the SCC has ruled that the current restrictions around that are unreasonable.

 

The reason the SCC hasn't struck down the laws immediately is that there are three ways Parliament could go to resolve this. First, they could do nothing and allow sex work to become much more legal in future (which, realistically, means leaving it up to provinces and municipalities to regulate); secondly, they could outlaw prostitution entirely (in which case that fact that other laws make it more difficult ceases to be an issue), or thirdly they could come up with an entirely new set of laws.

 

Irrespective of the relative merits of those three options, the decision between them is the prerogative of the legislative branch of government, not the judiciary. What the judiciary has done - and IMO is entirely correct to have done - is to give the legislative branch a serious boot up the ass and force them to consider the issue, while also allowing them time to give the issue due consideration.

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

They haven't found the law illegal. They've found the existing laws inconsistent and unreasonable; given that the exchange of sex for money is legal, the SCC has ruled that the current restrictions around that are unreasonable.

 

Mr. Phaedrus, I am a prostitute but I got my faculties intact. When the legislature infringes the Canadian Charter, he/she is acting outside his/her jurisdiction, which means in a simple layman terms, he/she is doing an illegal act.

 

Legal = Lawful and Illegal = Unlawful. This is a Chinese translation BTW.

 

If you are a CEO in a certain company, you can't create a sub-policy which infringes the company's main policy. You would be doing something illegal.

 

I must admit that I have disappointed my father's ambitions about me, but not to such a "superficial" extent!

[hillberry 180]

Great forward step. SP's should use this opportunity to speak out and ask for new laws that they want to protect their safety. Also, clients (like me) should also use the opportunity to ask for laws more focussed on dealing with underage abuse. The creeps that look for this cause legitimate sex trade to be tarnished unnecessarily.

[cinelli 22184]

If you are a CEO in a certain company, you can't create a sub-policy which infringes the company's main policy. You would be doing something illegal.

 

Company policies are not the same as laws. The guy who owns the company I work for occasionally walks around the shop floor without steel toes. It is his property.

 

Sometimes police or ambulances exceed the speed limit. If your house is on fire would you want the fire engine to stop and wait at every red light?

 

The Supreme Court wants the government to take a year and do a thorough job of crafting new laws. They can't just throw out all of Section 213 and write new laws over lunch.

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

Company policies are not the same as laws. The guy who owns the company I work for occasionally walks around the shop floor without steel toes. It is his property.

 

My analogy is premised on the fact that any human being in this universe (polic officer, administrator, judge, legislature , doctor etc) should conform to the sphere of laws he/she is obliged to adher to.

 

In this case the Supreme Court already found the laws unconstitutional which mean they were unlawful, so why on earth can't a panel of judges spell the words out in a form of declaration.

 

How about a judge finding that a thief committed a robbery but say that he won't declare it untill after one year. The thief goes to return the money back and the problem is solved I guess! Isn't it?

[Sweet Emily J 172062]

My analogy is premised on the fact that any human being in this universe (polic officer, administrator, judge, kegistlarur, doctor etc) should conform to the sphere of laws he/she is obliged to adher to.

 

In this case the Supreme Court already found the laws unconstitutional which mean they were unlawful, so why on earth can't a panel of judges spell the words out in a form of declaration.

 

I agree. I don't really understand why, if the laws are deemed unconstitutional, as they have been, that they would give a stay of one year. It's basically saying: yes, we have determined that your constitutional rights are being broken, but we are allowing it to continue.

 

Even the Federal Justice Minister Peter MacKay said himself: "A number of other Criminal Code provisions remain in place to protect those engaged in prostitution and other vulnerable persons, and to address the negative effects prostitution has on communities." He basically means that laws prohibiting violence & abuse, exploitation, slavery, kidnapping, unlawful confinement, rape, sex with a minor, coercion, trafficking, public nuisance, and commercial zoning laws are all still in place.

 

That said, then what is the real purpose of keeping these other unconstitutional laws in place for another year? How is it not unconstitutional to keep unconstitutional laws in effect?

 

There is a few reasons that come to mind. None of which I would condone.

[redmana2 2754]

That said, then what is the real purpose of keeping these other unconstitutional laws in place for another year? How is it not unconstitutional to keep unconstitutional laws in effect?

 

That was specifically requested by the government - they asked the court, should they lose, to have the opportunity to enact something to replace it. It's not uncommon for that to happen when the judicial branch reaches its influence into the legislative branch. The two aren't really meant to mingle, so it's the courts way of putting the onus back on government fix its mess. It can be argued that the current legislation does some things adequately. It deters really blatant exploitation and human trafficking, for example, or at least that's a point of view. If living off the avails is suddenly fair game then more than a few abusive scumbags could decide to set up shops tomorrow and cash in. The court would prefer parliment get its house in order, rather than itself be take the risk of being responsible for even worse problems. Not agreeing with it, that's just that reasoning.

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

And why is the government given a privilege over the private citizen for its wrongdoings?! Will the Supreme Court give me the chance to clean my own mess?! Or is it even constitutional for the top elite judges to treat the government and the private citizens differentially!

 

My Lord praise the Canadian judiciary!

[bcguy42 38594]

As an "outsider" I find it interesting that a court can rule that a law violates Charter rights but, using Section 1, say that's ok, it's in society's best interest. And the ability for a legislature to pass a law knowing it is unconstitutional using the Notwithstanding clause. All very strange to me.

 

My guess on the 1-year pause by the SCC is that they recognized what Parliament was trying to accomplish but the laws went too far. The pause is to allow parliament to have another go at it if they so desire.

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

In the name of society interests almost all large scale genocides were executed. This decision is nothing but a genocide for the judicial system and put the whole Canadian Charter on stay untill another uprize by society.

 

Now the Suprem Court has opened the door for itself to infringe the Charter when it was meant to be its sole final guardian! The deal was made, the government is happy, the media is happy and we are approaching a supposedly happy New Year!

[Anderson1111 130]

The government may have lost this battle, but they'll win the war.

 

If they enact the Nordic model, say goodbye to a lot of customers. I'm not going to chance it and I have a feeling I'm not the only one.

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

I am surprised that anyone who was following this case would think that this victory was going to result in abolition of the laws completely and instantly, and that there would be no new regulations. There is going to be a long hard fight ahead, and you will be surprised who will be the most challenging enemy in getting a proper set of regulations in place for this industry.

 

It would be naive to assume that. But, what we are facing here is a paradoxical situation at least. Declaring a law is invalid doesn't mean that the Parliament can't enact a new one.

 

The Supreme Court is meant to stay at equal distance from the parties and not engage itself in a job that is ought to be done by the Parliament. The only way where courts can take over such situations is where the Parliament is not existing/suspended. There is nothing that could prevent the Parliament from moving on expedite basis to enact new laws.

 

Were the Supreme Court preventing a foreseeable choas in society in "one year" by this stay?! Let's give the Courts this noble role and amuse ourselves with the consequences. Today one year, tomorrow two years, until one day we reach indefinite stay for the sake of the society's interests!

[drlove 37204]

The government may have lost this battle, but they'll win the war.

 

If they enact the Nordic model, say goodbye to a lot of customers. I'm not going to chance it and I have a feeling I'm not the only one.

 

Same here... too much of a risk.

[MisterMike 1873]

As a Canadian living in the US I find this scenario interesting to say the least and it should generate a great deal of discussion in my Canadian Studies classes after the Christmas break. This message board has given me another perspective and I'm going to use some of your comments/arguments in my lectures.

 

I have always thought that Canada's position has been very enlightened and reasonable. People who wish to pay for sexual relief should be able to do so as long as the sellers do so of their own free will, are of sound mind and are of legal age.

 

Yes it appears to be a victory but there may be repercussions that many of you will not like. Adopting the "Nordic Model" will assuredly drive away clients and negate any perceived gains. Busting "Johns" here in the US has been very effective in enforcing anti-prostitution laws in some jurisdictions. Any new Canadian or provincial legislation that may be considered by some to be "unconstitutional" will still require court challenges which will take years and cost a lot of $$$$$. The lawyers must be salivating heavily at the thought.

 

In my opinion the current status quo seems to be reasonable so why draw attention to something that many people probably don't think about too much but will not condone if given a chance to express their opinion. Remember the old adage: "Be careful what you wish for....." Frankly I think this decision opens up a whole can of worms to public scrutiny and attention when it may have been better off that way it is now.

 

I don't intend ro rain on anyone's parade but these are my thoughts. I would hope that your government has better things to worry about. Regardless, at this juncture there's no going back. The die is cast. We can only wait and see how it plays out and hope for the best.

 

Happy Holidays everyone.

 

Mister Mike

[drlove 37204]

Pandora's Box has been opened...

[Studio 110 by Sophia 150333]

Am I missing something? The way as it stands now, anyone caught in a Bawdy house is at risk of being charged, client or provider. This is how my lawyer explained it to me. He also explained, that technically a hotel room can also be considered " Bawdy House" no matter who supplies the room. Bawdy house is ANY location that is supplied:( However, we do have the " private, between 2 consenting adults" to fall back on:)

 

Just on Dec 21( this year, ) there was a bust of Bawdy house in Tracadie NB, inside was a minor of 17, drugs and weapons. So These types of places always will be thankfully of biggest concern to LE. If there was a "john" that was there at the time, he would have been charged along with the owners.

 

so will the Nordic model really affect us? If we are NOT working/taking part of these conditions as stated above?

[drlove 37204]

According to the current law, outcalls are legal. If the Nordic model is invoked, that may change.

 

Am I missing something? The way as it stands now, anyone caught in a Bawdy house is at risk of being charged, client or provider. This is how my lawyer explained it to me. He also explained, that technically a hotel room can also be considered " Bawdy House" no matter who supplies the room. Bawdy house is ANY location that is supplied:( However, we do have the " private, between 2 consenting adults" to fall back on:)

 

Just on Dec 21( this year, ) there was a bust of Bawdy house in Tracadie NB, inside was a minor of 17, drugs and weapons. So These types of places always will be thankfully of biggest concern to LE. If there was a "john" that was there at the time, he would have been charged along with the owners.

 

so will the Nordic model really affect us? If we are NOT working/taking part of these conditions as stated above?