Push to decriminalize prostitution begins in Toronto court

[vancouvertourista]

I thought this would be a hot topic in the lounge...

This may well go all the way to the supreme court...


http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/10/06/canada-prostitution-decriminalize685.html

Oops, there is already a thread here:

https://perb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=117794

 

[emilioa4]

this is way long overdo now. there needs to be a major overhaul on this topic. particularily MP laws. if cities and law enforcements can collect money from these places then i should have every right to go to one of these places.

 

[greatshark]

Even, if they are successful in completely decriminalizing prostitution, there is no way that the Conservatives would ever change the laws. They would use the "notwithstanding clause" if they had to.

The only change to decriminalizing prostitution will only come from the more liberal parties such as the NDP or the BLOC (Quebec only).

 

[neverwas]

If the challenge is successful the government would not have to actually change anything. If the relevant sections of the Criminal Code were found to violate the Charter those sections would cease to be enforceable even if they remained "on the books".
Control of brothels would then be a matter of zoning bylaws passed by each municipality to limit locations where brothels are allowed.
This application has a real chance of success. there is little doubt that the section of the Criminal Code prohibiting "bawdy houses" violates the SPs rights. The real issue is whether the limits on the SPs rights can be justified as "reasonable in the free and democratic society". If those lmitations can be justified they will survive the challenge.

 

[HankQuinlan]

If the challenge wins, there will be a big outcry from the moralists and conservatives about "judicial activism" and about how only elected politicians can change laws. Get ready for the opponents to provide their briefs, repeating the dogma about how it will open the doors for exploitation, blah blah. So far they have only heard the sane submissions.

 

[neverwas]

You are right Hank, but the Charter of Rights and Freedoms expanded the power of the courts to review and strike down legislation. It is now a proper function of the courts to make that type of ruling. Except in limited circumstances the legislative body can invoke the "notwithstanding clause" to provide for an violation of rights if it really wants to do so. In this way the legislatures do have the final say.
As you indicated, now we will hear from the moralists. That should be disgusting to those of us involved. I hope the judge limits the argument by the intervenors to just the relevant legal issues, otherwise the media will be presenting their side as if it was properly part of the legal issue.