A Canadian Court has overturned a series of laws regulating sex work, furthering the debate as to whether to decriminalise or clamp down on prostitution. The decision, handed down by the High Court in Ontario, effectively abolished laws banning street soliciting (communicating for the purposes of prostitution), working together …
Heh heh, spanking...
I like that quote, I'm going to spank some ass, Legally!"
Kinda got me excited, thinking of a sexy woman spanking my ass.
Then I saw this...
Now I don't feel so excited anymore...
The title is required, and must contain letters and/or digits.
You shallow, shallow person you...
Never get rid of it
It's called the oldest profession for a reason. No one yet has figured out a way to stop prostitution. Women get stoned to death for prostitution and it still continues. So I doubt that a fine is going to make much difference.
If the law criminalises people for selling sex, then only criminals are going to profit. The prostitutes themselves, men and women, will continue to be assaulted and killed, their health will suffer and those with real problems won't be offered the treatment that they need.
Why is it that as soon as a person gets elected as a member of government, their brains fall out their arse?
Second oldest profession, surely?
Otherwise how would the first prostitute's first customer have paid?
No Longer There
Doesn't that depend on whether it means "and still going?" If the first customer was a dinosaur-herder then the profession no longer exists.
However, the profession of "person-who-tells-others-what-to-do" has probably been around longer, albeit with slightly different names.
Dinosaur-herder?? 6000 year old earth perchance?
"focussing the full weight of the law on the most abhorrent practices, such as trafficking or child abuse."
Which according to the twisted minds of our former government, represents the majority of the sex industry. Everyone remember those trafficking figures they magically pulled out of their arses?
Out of where...?
Given the record of public figures, I have to ask who put them there, and whether they were paid for this service or not....
..who shoved it up there, and were they paid to do so? I think we should be told.
Gov in arrogant fascist parrot mode, as usual.
"Federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson claimed that it is for government to decide how best to protect prostitutes and local communities"
"I and myself in my infinite benevolent knowledge shall tell you how to lead your life and death."
. . is there even a discussion to be had any more?
I'm not sure of the reliability of the poll but I suspect that even a well-designed, statistically balanced, etc. etc. survey would pretty much find a majority have come around to this view now.
Nice headline, but I don't really see any Canadians getting too worked about this. Sure, our Federal Minister has decided to appeal, but red-faced spluttering politicians are in short supply--on this issue anyway.
We should respect sex workers and celebrate their empowerment
As long as they're touting on YOUR street corner.
(Liberal chatterati attitude to slags, synopsised for your pleasure)
The opposite is true
Allow licensed brothels in non-residential areas and there will be no need for prostitutes to tout on anybody's street corner.
The rest of your post is just nasty.
Bet your the same person
Who wants power stations, new housing, phone masts and other things that are argued against with this, somewhere else. Were not talking about street walkers here. Thats like complaining about all pubs because of Friday night in a city center.
The amusing side of this affair
When the Canadian constitution was repatriated from Britain about 40 years ago, the pols of the day inserted all sorts of high flown language into it.
These days, the honorable members of the bench are taking those words at face value, to the surprise and dismay of the current generation of Canuck pols. Particularly upset are the retards of the federal Conservative party, who are not much more than semi-fascist tea baggers. (As if any tea bagger were anything other than a fascist)
The same kind of judicial reasoning has led to a loosening of the laws governing marijuana, so soon Canada will be known as the country of a happy, stoned, sexually satisfied population.
Re : RW
"so soon Canada will be known as the country of a happy, stoned, sexually satisfied population."
And that is a bad thing?
That definitely sounds like a good thing to me.
"Happy, stoned, sexually satisfied population."
Ooooo...pizza's here! Niiiiiiiiice.
being a "Progressive Conservative" is an oxymoron?
you mean Conservative as preserving the foundations of what society has acheived and using that as a foundation to build for the future. This is different from Communist philosophy which prefers to build a new foundation by killing everyone who disagrees with this policy (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot anyone?) or Socialist Philosophy which assumes that the only people fit to think are those in Government bureacracies.
Following the merger of the reform and progressive conserative parties, and upon recognition of what the combined Conservative Reform Alliance Party would mean, they dropped the progressive part (what a surprise) and the Reform/Alliance tobe just the Conservative Party of Canada. (but they are still CRAP.
(Thumbs down to the nasty party of canada)
Flirting with Godwin aren't you?
Still fighting the cold war after all these years? The communists are no threat and Conservatives busy hopping into bed with the Chicoms is proof.
Brainless sock puppets keeping fear alive.
Now they will just bust the girls for not having a business license.
As a Canadian, I would suggest if it is legal, then it can be taxed. So lets get these girls working, and start saving me some money.
Pah, business license is the least of their worries.
I'd suggest it probably is already taxed and it's quite amazing how liberal the tax authorities are when it comes to the method in which the payments are earned.
Betcha all the 'accessories' are deductible too.
"It's for the government to decide..."
"It's for the government to decide how best to protect prostitutes..."
So I suppose the government feels that way about all citizens; it knows better than they do what's good for them?
UK Police Pimps?
Evening all, b*tch betta have ma money!
The same court just deported a guy to the states to face 20years for selling pot in Vancouver.
The Canadian's wouldn't prosecute him on the same harm/public good basis - but the US claimed that some of his customers were Merkins and so they handed him over without an argument.
The court that made this ruling is the Ontario Superior Court. Marc Emery was living in Vancouver, and extradited on a Federal order.
Toronto is about 3,000 miles from Vancouver, and extradition is a Federal, not a Provincial matter: not the same court.
By that precedent...
Iran could send undercover agents to Cleveland to buy pork chops and then demand the extradtion of the butcher to Tehran.
Well, that about sums it up, doesn't it?
"Federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson claimed that it is for government to decide how best to" DO ANYTHING EVER.
How DARE these courts decide whether or not the laws we write are constitutional or not! That's NOT how it's supposed to go - YOU GUYS WORK FOR US! You're just supposed to decide how much copyright felons have to pay to big business.
Why we, THE GOVERNMENT, could get SO MUCH DONE if it weren't for these pesky courts always interfering in our constitutional mandate to MAKE EVERYTHING EVER ILLEGAL.
prosecuting sex workers
They've taken all my money, guv. I'm flat on my back. No, really....
Unlike some countries, Canada has a written Constitution that works
Even though Canada only got it's Constitution in 1962, it has very few opt outs that might make politicians happy.
The hardest hitting part of The Constitution is the incorporated Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Would you really trust our lot of neo-puritanicals to put together a well written constitution without serious flaws, generalised and over-arching terms and a general no to any sort of freedom if the end product is that they can't interfere with your daily life?
Crafting a written constitution only works when you have people not trying to push their own agendas and actually have the freedom and enlightened ideals of society at heart.
Never mind the fact that we'd prolly never even get a referendum to vote on its acceptance either *cough*Lisbon Treaty/EU constitution*cough*
Sometimes it's better to have a fluid unwritten constitution than a total fuckup of a written one to work with/against.
Legalize, regulate, tax
Do it. Better protect prostitutes and their clients, save on enforcement costs, prosecute violent crimes which actually have a victim, undermine the gangsters who organize black markets, and increase tax revenues. Then do the same for marijuana.
The morally righteous are welcome to continue to abstain from these goods and services and judge those who partake. Everybody wins, except the gangsters.
It is high time that every country recognised that "Women's Rights" *INCLUDES* the right of a woman to decide *for herself* what she does with her body and to enjoy the same protections from violence and crime that everyone else does!
The rights and wrongs of prostitution aside the courts reasoning is horribly flawed and could be used to overturn any criminal law. Assuming it's accurately reported the judge should be investigated for incompetence.
Hear, hear and damned right! I can't support this statement enough.
If I rob a bank...
If I rob a bank then the police might come and arrest me which infrnges on my right to freedom! Also, I have to recruit my accomplices from dangerous places- which puts me in danger!
So when are the laws against robbery being repealed?
If the whores don't like the danger inherent in their illegal 'job' then they should quit.
The judge in this case must have been enjoying their services at the time he gave his judgement.
If you rob a bank...
You have infringed somebody else's right to enjoy their property and your right to enjoy freedom is removed as a punishment. In the case of prostitution, a person's right to exchange their labour for money is being infringed by the government without the prior justification of the prostitute/customer having infringed another party's rights.
If you don't like the ridicule inherent in making shitty analogies, then you should stop making shitty analogies.
IF I ROB A BANK...
I have rarely seen so many logical fallacies in one post since the glory days of usenet. Well done!
Should I say something about Nazi Germany now?
Bank doesn't choose to be robbed
It's usually not a mutually satisfactory agreement between robber and bank though, is it?
And if there can be a mutually satisfactory agreement between sex-worker and client why should there be laws to create/increase danger for either or both, when most would accept that our laws should be created primarily to reduce intentional danger and harm rather than pander to the twisted views of those posturing as morally superior?
I've never understood why the act of charging for something you can give away for free is illegal?
Now don't forget children...
Nanny ALWAYS knows best.
"Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms"
is that like the Bill of Rights?
It's a little like the Bill of Rights.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/
No, you're wrong...
Edward Kenworthy posted: The rights and wrongs of prostitution aside the courts reasoning is horribly flawed and could be used to overturn any criminal law. Assuming it's accurately reported the judge should be investigated for incompetence.
A woman's body is NOT the property of the government, or the queen of England, or the Pope, or God (unless you can prove it's existence), or Allah, or Buddah, or the Tea Party, or the Progressive Party, or Rush Limbaugh, or any judge on Earth. Her body is her property. Period.
If she wants to contract out as a real sex therapist (instead of those phony therapists who just talk), she should be able to. And there would be no more "standing on street corners" - they would have offices, and openly advertise their services in the phone book and on the net - without fear. They could have whatever level of security in their offices they want - without the fear that the police could take it all away.
Is there a religeon-free country out there somewhere, that I could move to? A country where, if it doesn't harm someone else, it's legal? Mine's the coat with the travel passport in the pocket. I'm ready to go.
How about a pricipality
"Is there a religeon-free country out there somewhere, that I could move to? A country where, if it doesn't harm someone else, it's legal? Mine's the coat with the travel passport in the pocket. I'm ready to go."
being a "Progressive Conservative" is an oxymoron?"
With Harper and his lot, just a moron.
History: before the Reform and Progressive (sic) Conservatives merged, Peter MacKay won the leadership of the PC's by promising another contender he would not merge the party. Then did exactly that.
No, we will not judge, just mourn.
"The morally righteous are welcome to continue to abstain from these goods and services and judge those who partake."
No, we won't judge those who partake. We will just mourn how something that can thoroughly ruin a person's life and mindset (not to mention darken his/her soul) has somehow become more socially and legally acceptable. Those who would be judgmental represent a very small minority of the Christian population and are not acting in accordance with the teachings of the new testament of the Bible.