Supreme Court of Canada strikes down prostitution laws

[The Supreme Canuck]

The Supreme Court of Canada has struck down the country's anti-prostitution laws in a unanimous decision, and given Parliament one year to come up with new legislation — should it choose to do so.

In striking down laws prohibiting brothels, living on the avails of prostitution and communicating in public with clients, the top court ruled Friday that the laws were over-broad and "grossly disproportionate."

"Parliament has the power to regulate against nuisances, but not at the cost of the health, safety and lives of prostitutes," wrote Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin in the 9-0 decision that noted "it is not a crime in Canada to sell sex for money."

Link

Turns out that laws against prostitution, which directly result in bodily harm to sex workers, violate the constitutional right to "life, liberty, and security of the person." Gee, who'd have thought?

I'm very happy with the ruling. Of course, the effect of the ruling is suspended for one year, so that the government can come back with different legislation or get its bureaucracy in order to deal with the changes. That's standard. With the current government, though, I absolutely expect an attempt at reintroducing prostitution laws. Conservatives are going to be conservative, I suppose. But then, there is an election on the way, so this could get interesting...

[cid]

To quote TSC: "...this could get interesting..."

Oh, trust me on this one, bubba...it already is...

[SciFiFisher]

In other news, socially awkward, ugly people, and traveling sales people are flocking to Canada. The Canadian Department of Immigration reports a 1000% increase in Visa applications.

[The Supreme Canuck]

They fucked up. They just announced the replacement law: criminalization of the purchase of prostitution services. Being a John is illegal.

Guess what? The original law was struck because it puts women at risk of violence. The new law? It puts women at risk of violence. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Expect a new court challenge on constitutional grounds almost immediately.

[FZR1KG]

Many marriages should thus be illegal.
Women and men have long married for money and the sums of money exchanged far exceed what a hooker charges.

Divorces where the split involves hundreds of millions of dollars.
Nothing but hookers imho.
Hell, it would be cheaper for the rich person just to hire a hooker full time.

But we can't touch that, because there is a contract there.
maybe hookers could do the same.
A temporary trial marriage period of an hour.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Oh for the love of...

Turns out that you can still be arrested if you're a prostitute. See, if you sell sex in an area where there "might reasonably be children," you can be arrested. The Conservatives seem to mean this broadly. Across the street from a downtown church? Jail. Parking lot of an urban high school at 4:00 am? Jail. Are you a 17-year-old prostitute who maintains the company of another 17-year-old prostitute for safety? Jail (see, you're both selling sex in front of a minor, so...).

Insane.

Oh, you also can't buy or sell sex in public, really. That nets you a fine. So you need to hide away. Which drives the trade underground, again, and makes things dangerous for sex workers: can't meet in public places, can't take your time to evaluate a john, can't do business in a safe location.

Fucking insane.

Watch this space. I bet you that, within one year of the new law being passed, I'm in here saying that it's being challenged in court.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the Conservative Party of Canada, as represented on the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights by MP Robert Goguen:

Conservative MP Robert Goguen should not be welcome in the Conservative caucus. His stupid and cruel use of a victim of gang rape to help him score a cheap rhetorical joke was an offence not only to the woman who had to live through his glib hypothesizing about her experience, but also to the dignity of Parliament.

[...]

I can only imagine how it would feel to answer hypothetical questions about what I would have felt if my sexual assault had gone differently – asked in a committee hearing, in my second language, while strangers look on, clicking their pens and checking their smartphones. Even worse, to be asked a deliberately nonsensical hypothetical question, while the questioner smirks, and waits for me to fill the silence.

This is what Goguen did to Nagy.

[...]

For the record, nobody – nobody – has suggested that being raped is a form of expression. Because that would be irrational and offensive.

That is the straw man argument Robert Goguen tried to construct during Monday’s parliamentary committee hearing. It was a transparent attempt to make it look like his opponents were arguing something ridiculous, that they were prioritizing people’s rights over the safety of women – when in fact, the safety of women is the primary concern the Supreme Court has raised about the effects of criminalization.

And he chose to use Timea Nagy to set up the joke.

[...]

“You were describing a scenario where you were being raped, I believe, by three Russians. Let’s suppose the police authorities would have broken in and rescued you. Would your freedom of expression have been breached?”

Silence. Then Nagy said she didn’t understand the question, saying that English was her second language. Of course, it was not a problem of language at all. The question made no sense. Goguen pressed the question again, smirking.

“What I’m saying is you weren’t freely expressing yourself by being raped by three men … If you were rescued, you wouldn’t feel like your rights were violated? You don’t get it. OK.”

I can’t speak for Nagy. But I do know my own stomach lurched, and the faces of the people listening to this bizarre line of questioning suggest I wasn’t the only one.

Source: Ottawa Citizen article

Foul, outrageous comments. Mr. Goguen should be immediately booted from the Conservative caucus for what he said. He won't be. I can almost certainly guarantee it.

[Cyborg Girl]

Actually I can very well see where someone would ask that... If they did not understand the difference between rape and consensual sex, at all.

Not sure where that puts Mr. Goguen, but it ought to put him a good distance away from government positions. And from relationships for that matter. God damn.

Edit: also, bonus points for screaming "Morals! Morals!" while being utter amoral hypocrites.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Edit: also, bonus points for screaming "Morals! Morals!" while being utter amoral hypocrites.

That's the Tory line on the prostitution bill, almost exactly:

Supreme Court: Current prostitution laws put women at risk of harm, and thus are unconstitutional. They're gone now. Fix it.

Tories: Gotcha. We agree that prostitutes are victimized. This is wrong. Thus we will pass this new law that doesn't prevent their victimization and continues to put them at risk in exactly the same way as the old law. Also? Prostitution is icky and immoral. Oh, and it's impossible for people to freely choose sex work... so we're going to make it impossible for sex work to be safe. Because if we made it safe, we'd be condoning slavery. Since all prostitutes are forced into sex work against their will. That's the moral thing to do... we're helping!

Every lawyer in the country: You're either stupid or lying.

[SciFiFisher]

Every lawyer in the country: You're either stupid or lying.

Is that considered badgering the witness?

[The Supreme Canuck]

Almost certainly. Though, since the lawyer on the other side agrees... no one is going to raise an objection.