So Close, and Yet...so far
Dudester
Prostitution laws stand for now in Ontario
Terri-Jean Bedford, left, and Valerie Scott, shown in 2009, along with a third woman, launched a constitutional challenge of Canada's anti-prostitution laws. (Michael Turshic/CBC) The Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that Canada's prostitution laws will stay in place for at least several more months, pending an appeal of a landmark ruling.
The court ruling on Thursday means that three laws — communicating for the purpose of prostitution, keeping a common bawdy house and living off the avails of prostitution — will continue to be valid.
The decision extends the stay until April 29, putting pressure on the government to expedite the appeal.
Lawyer Alan Young, who represented the sex trade workers who fought the laws, said outside the court on Thursday that the appeal "must be heard before April 29."
"This is simply an interim measure," he said, because there has never been a situation in Canada where there has been a "complete regulatory void in terms of the sex trade."
Young said that as far as he was concerned the April 29 limit was unnecessary.
"We are ready to argue this tomorrow," he said.
"I do believe when the dust settles [the lower court] decision will be upheld both by the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada," said Young.
Justice Marc Rosenberg, in his ruling, said it would be harmful to the public interest to have the lower court ruling come into effect immediately.
Federal Justice Minister Ron Nicholson said in Ottawa that he believes the laws are constitutional and that "the provisions denounce and deter the most harmful and public aspects of prostitution."
Nicholson said he expects the appeal will be heard before April 29.
Lawyers for the province and the federal government asked for the stay, saying that without it Canada would be plunged into an unprecedented social experiment because Parliament didn't have time to craft alternative legislation.
Earlier in 2010, an Ontario Superior Court judge struck down the three laws.
Justice Susan Himel ruled the laws were unconstitutional because they prevented sex trade workers from protecting themselves by doing business in their homes.
Himel said in her ruling that the current laws "contribute to the danger faced by prostitutes."
Dominatrix Terri-Jean Bedford, Valerie Scott and Amy Lebovitch had argued that the three laws forced them from the safety of their homes to face violence on the streets.
The women asked the court to declare legal restrictions on their activities a violation of charter rights of security of the person and freedom of expression.
Young said the laws as they stand right now mean "bad laws will continue to be under-enforced" and they need to be taken off the books right away.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2…
Terri-Jean Bedford, left, and Valerie Scott, shown in 2009, along with a third woman, launched a constitutional challenge of Canada's anti-prostitution laws. (Michael Turshic/CBC) The Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that Canada's prostitution laws will stay in place for at least several more months, pending an appeal of a landmark ruling.
The court ruling on Thursday means that three laws — communicating for the purpose of prostitution, keeping a common bawdy house and living off the avails of prostitution — will continue to be valid.
The decision extends the stay until April 29, putting pressure on the government to expedite the appeal.
Lawyer Alan Young, who represented the sex trade workers who fought the laws, said outside the court on Thursday that the appeal "must be heard before April 29."
"This is simply an interim measure," he said, because there has never been a situation in Canada where there has been a "complete regulatory void in terms of the sex trade."
Young said that as far as he was concerned the April 29 limit was unnecessary.
"We are ready to argue this tomorrow," he said.
"I do believe when the dust settles [the lower court] decision will be upheld both by the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada," said Young.
Justice Marc Rosenberg, in his ruling, said it would be harmful to the public interest to have the lower court ruling come into effect immediately.
Federal Justice Minister Ron Nicholson said in Ottawa that he believes the laws are constitutional and that "the provisions denounce and deter the most harmful and public aspects of prostitution."
Nicholson said he expects the appeal will be heard before April 29.
Lawyers for the province and the federal government asked for the stay, saying that without it Canada would be plunged into an unprecedented social experiment because Parliament didn't have time to craft alternative legislation.
Earlier in 2010, an Ontario Superior Court judge struck down the three laws.
Justice Susan Himel ruled the laws were unconstitutional because they prevented sex trade workers from protecting themselves by doing business in their homes.
Himel said in her ruling that the current laws "contribute to the danger faced by prostitutes."
Dominatrix Terri-Jean Bedford, Valerie Scott and Amy Lebovitch had argued that the three laws forced them from the safety of their homes to face violence on the streets.
The women asked the court to declare legal restrictions on their activities a violation of charter rights of security of the person and freedom of expression.
Young said the laws as they stand right now mean "bad laws will continue to be under-enforced" and they need to be taken off the books right away.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2…
10 comments
Farmerart ?
Second - does it surprise you that politics are now all over the place with the debate going on? This is primarily an Ontario issue and, coincidence of all coincidences, that is the province most hotly contested in federal elections. This issue does not resonate at all out West where I live or in French Canada.
Third - escorts and "massage" therapists are all licensed by local city governments (very high annual fee). This involves rigid identity verification and criminal record check by local police. They are only hassled by police if they are caught working without a licence.
If anyone is interested surf this site:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com
That is the best newspaper in English Canada and has followed this story extensively or, in French
http://www.cyberpresse.ca
Also try googling Terri-Jean Bedford, she was one of the plaintiffs involved in the original case and she is an absolute hoot, a real off-the-wall character.
The general consensus in Canada's legal community is that this will eventually reach The Supreme Court of Canada where the final decision will uphold the original judge's decision throwing out the laws in question.
On a personal note; old farmerart used massage parlours quite happily and entirely without incident for years until I discovered the delights of the SC world.
There are. Prostitution is technically legal in Canada, but it must currently be done in private places & it technically cannot be done in a brothel or bawdy house right now. Solicitation in public places is also illegal now as is pimping.
Many of the above restrictions are enforced haphazardly across Canada though. For instance, the FS strip clubs in Quebec are run pretty much without any hassle from anyone. I've seen open street prostitution in downtown Montreal be tolerated by local LE.
I agree with farmerart that the above restrictions as they relate to prostitution have their days numbered in Canada, which is a good thing IMHO.
Even if the laws are not strictly enforced, if it is still illegal, then there are certain de facto restrictions that are imposed on the practitioners in order to keep from being so obvious that law enforcement has to act or is likely to decide to act. This can lead to confusion and problems with different groups of people, some of whom try to follow the rules, while others try to push them. This can cause some people, even if they know how far the law permits them to go, to be confused with regard to how far they will in fact be allowed to go, resulting in some people resenting those who go farther without being punished, and others going too far and getting in trouble, who would not have done so otherwise.
I appreciate that law enforcement is not as zealous in their fight against the sex trade here in Texas as they could be. They certainly could be more proactive. If we hobbyists can find sex at massage parlors and strip clubs and with escorts, then certainly law enforcement can find it, too, and even stop it, but it seems that they do not do so, at least not very much. From what I have read, it seems to primarily depend on whether or not someone in the community complains.
As I said, I am glad that the sex trade laws are not strictly enforced here in Texas, but I believe that things could be much safer and nicer for everyone involved if we could just elect lawmakers who would repeal laws prohibiting the sex trade. I would not mind a little regulation in exchange for the legitimacy and safety that it would afford. But, oh, well. I do not anticipate that happening in this or the next generation, so we must make do with what we have.
I applaud Canada, though, for actually being relatively progressive in this area. The fact that they are actually taking steps to remove inappropriate restrictions is a very good sign. Maybe even Texas will progress to a more liberal society someday, and if I am very, very lucky, it may even be within my lifetime.