From here:
The Supreme Court of Canada has unanimously struck down the nation’s anti-prostitution laws.
The high court deemed laws prohibiting brothels, communicating in public with clients and living on the profits of prostitution to be too sweeping.
The ruling follows a court challenge filed by former and current sex workers.
The justices’ decision gives the Canadian government one year to craft new legislation.
All nine of the court’s judges ruled in favour of striking the laws down, finding they were “grossly disproportionate”.
“It is not a crime in Canada to sell sex for money,” Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote in Friday’s decision.
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin has a point: since prostitution is not illegal in Canada then, legally, brothels should be little worse than restaurants, “communicating in public with clients” is merely advertising and pimps are a form of publicity agent. Becoming a prostitute is clearly a legitimate career choice whose adoption by, say, one of McLachlin’s daughters – assuming he has any – would prompt little more than the raising of a parental eyebrow.
Perhaps prostitution should be illegal – at least that would be consistent.
Lawyers for the Ottawa government reportedly claimed “if the conditions imposed by the law prejudice [sex workers’] security, it is their choice to engage in the activity, not the law, that is the cause”.
But the Supreme Court ruled it was not a choice for many.
“Whether because of financial desperation, drug addictions, mental illness, or compulsion from pimps, they often have little choice but to sell their bodies for money,” Justice McLachlin wrote.
The Supreme Court didn’t pay prostitutes much of a compliment by ruling that prostitution is not “a choice for many.” To claim a person is bereft of one of the distinguishing characteristics of humanity, free will – the potential a person has to make a choice that is not entirely conditioned by circumstance – is to regard her as less than human.
For too long we have witnessed in Canada lawyers with little if any principles working to change laws that have been established by our elected representatives. Their aim is clearly to run the country by their rules. What is needed are appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada that are prepared to stand behind properly established laws. Tragically they are all lawyers and have no understanding or acceptance of morality or recognition of the government.
Your argument is based on the assumption that the lawyers who originally made the laws had morals and values 😉
In my opinion, much of the blame can be laid at Stephen Harper and the Conservatives as the Conservatives appointed all but one of the current justices. They are our elected representatives and have chosen a court that emphasizes the rights and freedoms of individuals to pursue economic interests. The ruling yesterday fits this goal. While I myself have voted Conservative for many years, I will be holding my nose and voting against them in the next election. It’s time to re-balance government and have people who can think beyond purely economic interests and who can consider the impact of laws on broader society. Then again, my solution is also temporary. As Frank noted, we also need to find a way to allows a place for morals in government again… but in a way that doesn’t make Canada a theocracy.
Has there ever been any risk of Canada becoming a theocracy?
Surely the opposite problem is what we face?
I’m not saying that there currently is a risk. What I am saying is that countries that try to impose a moral code often become theocracies (think Saudi Arabia or Iran). I’d love for Canada to find a way to re-allow moral discussions in government while still permitting democracy and diversity. I don’t think that this is an easy task in today’s multi-cultural society.
The problem goes very deep. Where to begin? I have seen too many women ‘caught’ in the sex trade through no real ‘will’ of their own. There are those who would glamourize the trade (and there may indeed be glamorous sides to it at the high end), but they ignore the misfortune of the worst kind of street prostitution. For many of these women it is a vicious cycle – sell their bodies to buy drugs; take the drugs to mask the pain of their lifestyle and position. One might say they had a choice regarding this lifestyle, but often it begins very young, before the age that ‘mature’ choices can be consciously made. Whether it’s rebellion on the part of a young girl, or abuse by a relative or step relative, the street sometimes seems preferable to an abusive home, to a young impressionable girl. It doesn’t take long before she is in a position where there seems to be no escape and no alternative but to offer herself for the sexual pleasure of others.
I tend to be rather laisse-faire on the general issue, but in my opinion, the harshest punishment should be reserved for the men who draw or force these young girls into prostitution in the first place, and who profit from their circumstances.
Leave selling sex legal – criminalize the people who buy, with harsh penalties. Offer the sellers ( who aren’t all women, by the way) who are caught safe houses and drug rehab. I have a great deal of sympathy for the sellers. I think the buyers should face prison time.
For John K.:-
I fully agree with your last paragraph but you have undoubtedly noted the decision of the Supreme Court makes living off the avails of prostitution legal. That is the real tragedy of the matter.
I should also respond to the suggestion that Stephen Harper is responsible (posting by Edmonton Anglican). No, I do not believe that Stephen Harper or the Conservatives are to blame any more than any other party. Remember it was under Trudeau – Canada’s worst prime minister – that the so-called Charter of Rights and Freedoms was brought in. That has proven to be an escape route for all types of criminal activity.
Yes. Does this give unscrupulous men free licence to recruit girls? If so, a great mistake, and the lives and pain of these young girls will be on the heads of the Supreme Court Justices.
Reminds me of a science fiction book I read in the 60s. To control the population there would be mass marches which we have, i.e the Sun Run, casinos and brothels. We now have the first two and are about to have the third. Isn’t progress grand.
The issue is not allowing moral discussions in government but ensuring that the courts of the land are prepared to stand behind moral decisions made by our elected officials. Diversity might sound like a positive term but it can also be used as an excuse to allow immoral conduct as witnessed by this decision by the Supreme Court.