Don't hold your breath...legalizing prostitution

[Stoo]

A more harsh law won't do anything to stop prostitution. All it will do is drive it further underground, and probably increase risk for the ladies, since some will end up working for bad, bad people.

Really, are you going to quite this hobby because some politician says so?

This is sad and laughable all at the same time.

 

[fuji]

The point I was trying to make was that the Conservatives (or at least their official policy at any rate) have always wanted to make prostitution illegal, and they have made consistent statements to that effect for years, not just in this year's policy statements. And the Conservatives have had plenty of opportunity to further criminalize prostitution during their long tenure in government and have chosen not to pursue the matter in any serious way, in spite of public statements to the contrary. (And keep in mind, this is just a policy statement, not legislation or fait accompli law of the land)

Exactly how this year is any different from past years is difficult for me to see.

The difference is that the SCC is about to strike down the bawdy house and avails laws. Unlike other years, that will give the Conservatives a motive to implement their draconian, medieval social policy.

 

[Samurai Joey]

The difference is that the SCC is about to strike down the bawdy house and avails laws. Unlike other years, that will give the Conservatives a motive to implement their draconian, medieval social policy.

First of all, we don't know whether or not the SCC will actually strike down the bawdy house and avails laws (the lower courts have done so, but we can't predict how the SCC will rule on this).

Second, it is one thing for the Conservatives to issue a policy statement condemning the purchase and sale of sex, it is quite another to actually bring forth legislation to further criminalize prostitution and face scrutiny for doing so (not to mention that any such new law will have the potential to face further court challenges from the same people who brought forth the court case in the Bedford decision). Furthermore, the Harper government has generally refrained from diving head deep on social issues for fear of being tainted with the charge of having a "hidden" agenda -- occasionally he's thrown a bone by, for example, cancelling the long-form census, but that's about as far as he's gone.

What I suspect will more likely occur will be one of the following, assuming the SCC actually does strike down the bawdy house laws:

(1) Harper and others within his government will issue a public statement strongly condemning the SCC decision, point to their own policy statement, but otherwise do nothing further. Not unlike their stance on same-sex marriage.

(2) Harper and his government will invoke the Notwithstanding Clause to effectively nullify the SCC decision and continue to keep the current bawdy house and avails laws in the books, so to speak (i.e. the current status quo). Taking this approach will spare the government from actually crafting any new legislation while still being consistent with their stated opposition of legalizing prostitution.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Just FTR, Sweden made prostitution illegal and decided to punish the clients and not the girls, and yet they still have a thriving prostitution business:

http://www.internationalsexguide.info/forum/forumdisplay.php?205-Sweden

 

[canada-man]

is the police in Sweden setting up stings to catch hobbyists?

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

is the police in Sweden setting up stings to catch hobbyists?

From what I read I think its just street prostitution and sex-traffickers they mainly go after. Not so much local online escorts or agencies.

Supposedly prostitution in Sweden has increased, not decreased:

http://feministire.wordpress.com/20...w-more-not-less-prostitution-and-trafficking/

More here: http://www.thelocal.se/27580/20100703/

 

[fuji]

First of all, we don't know whether or not the SCC will actually strike down the bawdy house and avails laws (the lower courts have done so, but we can't predict how the SCC will rule on this).

Second, it is one thing for the Conservatives to issue a policy statement condemning the purchase and sale of sex, it is quite another to actually bring forth legislation to further criminalize prostitution and face scrutiny for doing so (not to mention that any such new law will have the potential to face further court challenges from the same people who brought forth the court case in the Bedford decision). Furthermore, the Harper government has generally refrained from diving head deep on social issues for fear of being tainted with the charge of having a "hidden" agenda -- occasionally he's thrown a bone by, for example, cancelling the long-form census, but that's about as far as he's gone.

What I suspect will more likely occur will be one of the following, assuming the SCC actually does strike down the bawdy house laws:

(1) Harper and others within his government will issue a public statement strongly condemning the SCC decision, point to their own policy statement, but otherwise do nothing further. Not unlike their stance on same-sex marriage.

(2) Harper and his government will invoke the Notwithstanding Clause to effectively nullify the SCC decision and continue to keep the current bawdy house and avails laws in the books, so to speak (i.e. the current status quo). Taking this approach will spare the government from actually crafting any new legislation while still being consistent with their stated opposition of legalizing prostitution.

I guarantee you they won't use the notwithstanding clause. They will seem legislation that is compatible with the charter.

If you think that they aren't likely to act in response to the court kicking the sleeping dog, I don't know what to say.

 

[Samurai Joey]

I guarantee you they won't use the notwithstanding clause. They will seek legislation that is compatible with the charter.

What makes you so sure that they won't use the clause? It is within their power to do so, and there are a number of advantages for the Conservatives to take this option, number one being that they will not have to go through the process of seeking legislation. Prorogation (which the Conservative government have done twice) had similar advantages.

If you think that they aren't likely to act in response to the court kicking the sleeping dog, I don't know what to say.

My opinion is based on the general record of the Harper Conservatives while in power. As I said previously, the Harper Conservatives have always made it perfectly clear their positions on prostitution when that issue had been brought into public discussion, and they have had many opportunities to further criminalize prostitution for years and have not done so. The ruling of the SCC won't really change anything in that regard.

Of course anything is possible, and it may be the case that the Harper government may indeed seek new legislation that will be compatible with the Charter (most likely as part of a broader omnibus bill or crime bill), but again, I think this is unlikely.

 

[fuji]

The notwithstanding clause requires legislation. And they won't do it. It would be political suicide and they are not politically suicidal. They would immediately be accused of trampling charter rights, and everybody could point to the notwithstanding clause as proof of it.

Plus the notwithstanding clause has to be renewed every five years, so it wouldn't put the issue to rest, it would just keep coming back until someone legislated it properly.

 

[explorerzip]

The phrase "there's no place for the state in the bedrooms in the nation" comes to mind. Too bad some in government have the mindset that morals have to be legislated.

 

[Samurai Joey]

The notwithstanding clause requires legislation. And they won't do it. It would be political suicide and they are not politically suicidal. They would immediately be accused of trampling charter rights, and everybody could point to the notwithstanding clause as proof of it.

Plus the notwithstanding clause has to be renewed every five years, so it wouldn't put the issue to rest, it would just keep coming back until someone legislated it properly.

The opposition parties have already accused the Conservatives of trampling various rights when they have prorogued parliament, so I wouldn't exactly put it past them not to use the notwithstanding clause. And 5 years is a long time in politics so I also wouldn't put it past the Conservatives to invoke the clause as a way of "kicking the can down the road" (governments have frequently to doing this on issues and topics they find distasteful).

All of that being said, you may be right that they may not do this. My personal opinion is that the government, after making the obligatory disappointment and condemnation of the SCC decision (assuming it will rule to strike down the bawdy house law), will simply let the matter slide, perhaps allowing individual provinces to come up with legislation of their own.

It seems to be that many of you here on TERB, including fuji, may be wondering my rationale for my opinion. It is this -- in democracies, the party in power generally will always try to push through legislation that is of priority to them as early in their mandate as possible, for the simple reason that time is typically not on their side. The Conservatives under Harper have governed Canada since 2006, and they have had a majority government since 2011 -- that was plenty of time for them to criminalize prostitution. The fact that they have not done so (in spite of public statements calling for further restrictions) is evidence aplenty of the priority they place this issue, i.e. very little.

 

[fuji]

Again, I don't think they had an agenda to criminalize prostitution when they were elected, but if the courts strike down the present regime they will respond.

If the courts leave the present laws intact I expect they will just leave it, as you point out they have done. It's if the courts create what they will consider an. unacceptable situation that they will react.

 

[afterhours]

I now think that SCC will likely upheld OCA and may drop in obiter that provinces/municipalities are welcome to impose by-laws etc. Then it would depend on what Ontario does. It can legislate it into the underground zone (and hobbyists would be welcome to break the law or go to Montreal). If Ontario does not introduce anything drastic, then some municipalities will become more red light friendly than others.

 

[MattRoxx]

The phrase "there's no place for the state in the bedrooms in the nation" comes to mind. Too bad some in government have the mindset that morals have to be legislated.

The irony here is that the Cons criticized the census for asking questions like "How many bedrooms are in your home?"

Asked to explain why this matters to the core Conservative constituency, one senior Tory strategist said, on background: "It's all about the nanny state. Why is it mandatory to tell the government how many bedrooms are in your house?"

So they aren't concerned about the number, but apparently they do need to know what sort of activity goes on there. The Harper gov't doesn't want to be nannies, they prefer to act as Big Brother.

 

[TeasePlease]

I now think that SCC will likely upheld OCA and may drop in obiter that provinces/municipalities are welcome to impose by-laws etc. Then it would depend on what Ontario does. It can legislate it into the underground zone (and hobbyists would be welcome to break the law or go to Montreal). If Ontario does not introduce anything drastic, then some municipalities will become more red light friendly than others.

No doubt the SCA will uphold the lower court, and many municipalities, including Toronto have been exploring revisions to local codes. But, the CCC supersedes bylaws....

as for the bedroom argument...that makes sense if you perceive prostitution to be a victimless crime, its obvious from from how the CPC has phrased its policy that it does not hold this particular view.

 

[IM469]

) The Conservative Party rejects the concept of legalizing the purchase of sex;
ii) The Conservative Party declares that human beings are not objects to be enslaved, bought or sold;

The Conservative party is comfortable curtailing freedom of choice and dictating to all people a life style that conservatives personally favour.

The view the type of services people are bought , sold and/or enslaved. I guess all jobs requiring manual labour will be unlawful because even if we choose to dig a ditch, move furniture or use our bodies in the exchange of money to live - they will not let us enslave ourselves.

As for buying and selling people (not actually applicable to prostitution but to human trafficking - a different topic) - I guess organized sports will be outlawed in Canada. You can't trade people and certainly they can't use their bodies for your entertainment pleasure.

This is where libertarians and conservatives split company - fiscal responsibility - yes but for libertarians - freedom of choice & government intervention into our lives is a big no-no.