# Supreme Court Strikes Down Prostitution Laws



## Pogo (Dec 20, 2013)

>> TORONTO (AP)  Canada's highest court struck down the country's anti-prostitution laws in their entirety Friday, including against keeping a brothel.

The 9-0 Supreme Court ruling is a victory for sex workers seeking safer working conditions because it found that the laws violated the guarantee to life, liberty and security of the person. But the ruling won't take effect immediately because it gave Parliament a one-year reprieve to respond with new legislation.

Prostitution isn't illegal in Canada, but many of the activities associated with prostitution are classified as criminal offences.

The high court struck down all three prostitution-related laws: against keeping a brothel, living on the avails of prostitution, and street soliciting. The landmark ruling comes more than two decades after the Supreme Court last upheld the country's anti-prostitution laws.

The decision upheld an Ontario Court of Appeal ruling last year that struck down the ban on brothels on the grounds that it endangered sex workers by forcing them onto the streets. <<

More at the link


----------



## Esmeralda (Jan 2, 2014)

I am for legalized prostitution.  Austria has legal prostitution. I lived there for 4 years and it made lots of sense. There was a brothel a block from where I worked, which was a nice neighborhood, near the largest park in the city, near expensive homes and apartment buildings.  In fact, I lived in one of those buildings for 8 months.  You wouldn't even know the brothel was a brothel except for there were a couple of soft toned neon lights in the windows. There were never any wierd guys hanging about outside  or anything like that; it was very  private and unobtrusive.

Legalizing prostitution is not because the culture thinks prostitution is cool but because the culture wants to eliminate it as a crime with prostitutes going to jail, having to waste police efforts looking for 'vice,' etc., and because the culture wants a safe working situation for these women. The Austrians, realistically, consider prostitution inevitable, so making it legal simply allows them to keep control over it and make it safer for everyone.  Also keeps people from being overly morally righteous.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 2, 2014)

Yes lets legalize all drugs, make prostitution legal, and require a license to murder. I mean we can't stop it anyway......


----------



## strollingbones (Jan 2, 2014)

two outta three aint bad


----------



## Noomi (Jan 2, 2014)

I don't agree with selling your body for money, but if that is what people choose to do, who am I to judge? As long as they are safe and protected, and if making it legal will make it safer, then so be it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 2, 2014)

strollingbones said:


> two outta three aint bad



Ya cause the reason to legalize is cause we can not stop it. Might as well repel all laws, I mean burglars aren't gonna stop, street crime won't stop. Hell with Morals and whats right and wrong lets just make decisions based on what we can stop.


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 2, 2014)

gotta love free enterprise.


----------



## strollingbones (Jan 2, 2014)

why continue to fight the losing war on drugs?  in countries where drugs are legal...drug use will go down....isnt that the goal of all the drugs wars?  or is it to enforce one set of morals on everyone?

as for hookers....its called the oldest profession for a reason


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 2, 2014)

In one breath the rwer's are telling us that regs curtailing business is bad, in the next breath they are saying we should make regs to curtail business.


----------



## Esmeralda (Jan 2, 2014)

RetiredGySgt said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> > two outta three aint bad
> ...



The right wing constantly argues that it was impossible to make liquor illegal and prohibition was stupid.  But when it comes to something you feel self righteous about, then it definitely should be prohibited, even though, like alcohol, it is inevitable that people will do it or use it.  You are angry with New York city trying to prohibit extra large soft drinks, but are okay with restricting other things that people want. You pick and choose your rights and wrongs based on your personal opinions and emotions, not on reality or logic.  You constantly bitch about the Nanny State but support it whenever it prohibits what you want prohibited.


----------



## bayoubill (Jan 2, 2014)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yes lets legalize all drugs, make prostitution legal, and require a license to murder. I mean we can't stop it anyway......



hmmm... lemme ponder on this...

drug and prostitution transactions involve a non-violent exchange between two willing parties... 

murder is a violent act that always involves the violation of an unwilling party... 

am I missing something here...?


----------



## Pogo (Jan 2, 2014)

RetiredGySgt said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> > two outta three aint bad
> ...



Na cause the reason to illegalize it was never legitimate.
Got cher "morality" right there.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jan 2, 2014)

Since when does Canukastan lead the way in removing laws that suppress freedom?

anyway, good for them.

And I'm loving the leftist approval of this, since they hate the right to bear arms, this is just some tasty irony


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 2, 2014)

Two Thumbs said:


> Since when does Canukastan lead the way in removing laws that suppress freedom?
> 
> anyway, good for them.
> 
> And I'm loving the leftist approval of this, since they hate the right to bear arms, this is just some tasty irony



I have arms, as does the prostitutes.


----------



## william the wie (Jan 2, 2014)

If it involves consenting adults and their own bodies and properties then the public interest must be extremely high to interfere. To take an extreme example a 13 year old can own a gun but not vote, a felon who has served his time can vote but not own a gun obviously one or both of those examples is a case of asserting a non-existent public interest.


----------



## Esmeralda (Jan 2, 2014)

william the wie said:


> If it involves consenting adults and their own bodies and properties then the public interest must be extremely high to interfere. To take an extreme example a 13 year old can own a gun but not vote, a felon who has served his time can vote but not own a gun obviously one or both of those examples is a case of asserting a non-existent public interest.



It is in the public interest for little kids not to have guns. It is in the public interest for felons not to have guns. Legal prostitution, between consenting adults in the privacy of a hotel room or brothel, etc., is no concern of anyone else's.  It doesn't affect or injure anyone else. It doesn't threaten anyone's safety.  Illegal prostitution can cause problems, however, most often the safety of the prostitute or the peace and security of some neighborhoods where there are street walkers and drug addicts.  Legalized prostitution also creates more safety for the men who go to prostitutes because when regulated, prostitutes must be checked for STDs regularly.  Making prostitution legal and regulating it for everyone's safety and security is the most reasonable thing to do. Giving guns to 13 year olds and felons is not.


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 2, 2014)

Esmeralda said:


> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> > If it involves consenting adults and their own bodies and properties then the public interest must be extremely high to interfere. To take an extreme example a 13 year old can own a gun but not vote, a felon who has served his time can vote but not own a gun obviously one or both of those examples is a case of asserting a non-existent public interest.
> ...



Under federal law, those convicted of a felony are forbidden from purchasing or possessing firearms and explosives. Yet as the result of a 1965 amendment to the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, convicted felons were allowed to apply to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) for "relief" from the "disability" of not being able to buy and possess guns.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/felons.htm


----------



## Peterf (Jan 2, 2014)

Noomi said:


> I don't agree with selling your body for money, but if that is what people choose to do, who am I to judge? As long as they are safe and protected, and if making it legal will make it safer, then so be it.



In Sweden it is not a crime to sell sexual services but it IS a crime to buy them.   Prostitutes are not arrested but their customers are, and sometimes imprisoned.

This fits the feminist agenda: Prostitutes are victims and are exploited by men.   So it is the clients who are the criminals.

Does anyone know of another country with similar legislation?


----------



## Spiderman (Jan 2, 2014)

RetiredGySgt said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> > two outta three aint bad
> ...



The reason to legalize it is that it is a victimless crime and what 2 consenting adults do sexually is no one's business but theirs.


----------



## strollingbones (Jan 2, 2014)

of course i guess considering that voters will vote this in.....if allowed to vote on it.....but hey why should we care what the majority thinks


----------



## Spiderman (Jan 2, 2014)

strollingbones said:


> of course i guess considering that voters will vote this in.....if allowed to vote on it.....but hey why should we care what the majority thinks



We don't consider mob rule in cases of civil rights do we?


----------



## Pogo (Jan 2, 2014)

Two Thumbs said:


> Since when does Canukastan lead the way in removing laws that suppress freedom?
> 
> anyway, good for them.
> 
> And I'm loving the leftist approval of this, since they hate the right to bear arms, this is just some tasty irony





..... huh?
are we sure we know what "irony" means?


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jan 2, 2014)

Pogo said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Since when does Canukastan lead the way in removing laws that suppress freedom?
> ...



Yea, I of all people know what irony is


----------



## Pogo (Jan 2, 2014)

Two Thumbs said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...



Hmm- methinks you may have irony confused with non sequitur or red herring?


----------



## strollingbones (Jan 5, 2014)

a majority of voters is now mob rule?


----------



## OnePercenter (Jan 5, 2014)

Esmeralda said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > strollingbones said:
> ...



That law only effects restaurants where you can get free refills, which kinda makes the right wing look stupid. Because they are.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jan 5, 2014)

Good for the CAN court!


----------



## Peterf (Jan 5, 2014)

Two Thumbs said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...



Irony is the activity kind women engage in after they've washed their husbands shirts.

Surely everyone knows that?


----------



## Spiderman (Jan 5, 2014)

strollingbones said:


> a majority of voters is now mob rule?



Yes it always has been.

Would you put up any civil rights law up for a majority vote?


----------



## BruSan (Jan 12, 2014)

Spiderman said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> > a majority of voters is now mob rule?
> ...



No sirree!  I'd much rather submit it to a small group of politically beholden and biased appointee's to decide.  Much more relevant than a majority of voters in a democratic system.


----------



## 007 (Jan 12, 2014)

If people did more fuckin' and less fightin', the world would be a much better place.

Something as simple as sex, if people want to do it, who in the HELL are they hurting?


----------



## Katzndogz (Jan 13, 2014)

007 said:


> If people did more fuckin' and less fightin', the world would be a much better place.
> 
> Something as simple as sex, if people want to do it, who in the HELL are they hurting?



Women who are kidnapped, drugged and forced into prostitution are certainly being hurt.  That's what happened with legalized prostitution in Amsterdam.   

Prostitution is just one of those things that will never be fully legalized as in operating under the law.   As you pointed out if people want to do it, they will.   If they want to have sex without legal constrictions, they will.   There's nothing that could possibly help.


----------



## Luissa (Jan 13, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > If people did more fuckin' and less fightin', the world would be a much better place.
> ...




Or they could do it on the streets and be killed, drugged or kidnapped. 
We had a serial killer here who killed 10+ hookers. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Luissa (Jan 13, 2014)

Two Thumbs said:


> Since when does Canukastan lead the way in removing laws that suppress freedom?
> 
> anyway, good for them.
> 
> And I'm loving the leftist approval of this, since they hate the right to bear arms, this is just some tasty irony




We hate the right to bear arms?

And I find it funny that right wingers are against this. I didn't think they liked to regulate capitalism? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

