• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Canada high court strikes down all restrictions on prostitution [W:232]

:doh
The decision was not based on liberty.

And recognizing it is a further erosion of decent standards does not say I am saddened. Where do you come up with such nonsense?

If someone enters into a contract to have sexual relations in the privacy of their setting, it does not affect your life in any way...really, it doesn't, unless you let yourself be obsessed by the fact that someone is enjoying themself.
 
The facts are, whatever basis the court decided what it decided, personal freedom was increased, which is what RabidAlpaca said.
:doh He said it was a victory for liberty when it was a victory for safety.
End of story.


The facts also are that you oppose both the safety and personal freedom of the prostitutes based on your notions of "decency."
You clearly do not know the facts but instead wish to assume you do.

So as already provided.

The sweeping 9-0 decision will take effect in one year, inviting Parliament to try to come up with some other way to regulate the sex trade if it chooses to do so.

If you do not understand that leaves the door open to further restrictions upon liberty you clearly have not thought things through.
 
Last edited:
:doh He said it was a victory for liberty when it was a victory for safety.
End of story.

It can't be both? (Hint: of course it can, and he said so. It's only your stubbornness which gets in the way of your being able to see it.)


You clearly do not know the fact but instead wish to assume you do.

So as already provided.

The sweeping 9-0 decision will take effect in one year, inviting Parliament to try to come up with some other way to regulate the sex trade if it chooses to do so.

If you do not understand that leaves the door open to further restrictions upon liberty you clearly have not thought things through.

This speaks nothing to what I said.

You are opposed to prostitution being legalized on the basis of "decency." Thus, the concerns of neither safety nor liberty are important to you in the name of that notion of "decency."

You're trying to slink away from it, but those are "the facts," and according to you, "accuracy" is important.
 
Canada high court strikes down all restrictions on prostitution

By Randall Palmer, Reuters

OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada struck down all current restrictions on prostitution on Friday, including bans on brothels and on street solicitation, declaring the laws were unconstitutional because they violated prostitutes' safety.

The sweeping 9-0 decision will take effect in one year, inviting Parliament to try to come up with some other way to regulate the sex trade if it chooses to do so.

[...]

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin said many prostitutes "have no meaningful choice" but to "engage in the risky economic activity of prostitution," and that the law should not make such lawful activity more dangerous.

"It makes no difference that the conduct of pimps and johns is the immediate source of the harms suffered by prostitutes," she wrote.

"The impugned laws deprive people engaged in a risky, but legal, activity of the means to protect themselves against those risks."

[...]

Canada high court strikes down all restrictions on prostitution - World News

And the further erosion of decent standards.

The Justice's reasoning is absurd. Or is that liberal?

Actually, if it was a liberal ruling in nature, the court would have required the government to fund free "houses of ill repute" for prostitutes to conduct business in.

This is more along the line of Canadian conservatism. We're far more concerned with keeping track of the money and how it's spent and far less interested in dictating to private citizens how they should live their lives. It may be the reverse of the liberal/conservative dynamic in the US.
 
Last edited:
Well, liberty had a major victory in Canada today. A person can now do with their own body what they choose. This seems to upset you. What other conclusions are we to draw here?

I can think of a couple of posters that would find it very objectionable, blaming the further 'collapse' of society on women's choices. First casual sex (promiscuity) and now this....."it's completely women's faults for becoming *more available* to men...not the men's faults." Apparently they are just like this naturally and only controlling and limiting women all these millenia has prevented the collapse of society. The claim will be that 'women dont really know what they like or need...they are all being taken advantage of.'
 
:doh
The decision was not based on liberty.

And recognizing it is a further erosion of decent standards does not say I am saddened. Where do you come up with such nonsense?

It's not a further erosion...it removes a 'crime' that really has no basis in personal liberty (altho it's Canada and not the US). How does less crime contribute to the erosion of decent standards?
 
It can't be both? (Hint: of course it can, and he said so. It's only your stubbornness which gets in the way of your being able to see it.)
And it wasn't.
It was a supposed victory for safety.
Nothing more.
Because, as pointed out, the court left open further restriction on it.


You are opposed to prostitution being legalized on the basis of "decency."
:naughty
I said it was a further erosion of standards of decency.
That is all.
You assumed for that which you chose.

I also stated that the Judges reasoning was absurd.
Apparently you also chose to assume you knew what that meant instead of asking.





Thus, the concerns of neither safety nor liberty are important to you in the name of that notion of "decency."
Important to me?
What a ridiculous and meaningless thing to assert.
I never said it was or wasn't important.
But with that said.
Their safety is better protected by having it outlawed and strictly enforced.


You're trying to slink away from it, but those are "the facts," and according to you, "accuracy" is important.
You are being absurd. There has been no slinking away from what I said.
You just choose to assume that which you do not know.
 
Last edited:
It's not a further erosion...it removes a 'crime' that really has no basis in personal liberty (altho it's Canada and not the US). How does less crime contribute to the erosion of decent standards?
The decision was not about personal liberty but safety.
And indecency is still indecency.
 
Canada high court strikes down all restrictions on prostitution

By Randall Palmer, Reuters

OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada struck down all current restrictions on prostitution on Friday, including bans on brothels and on street solicitation, declaring the laws were unconstitutional because they violated prostitutes' safety.

The sweeping 9-0 decision will take effect in one year, inviting Parliament to try to come up with some other way to regulate the sex trade if it chooses to do so.

[...]

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin said many prostitutes "have no meaningful choice" but to "engage in the risky economic activity of prostitution," and that the law should not make such lawful activity more dangerous.

"It makes no difference that the conduct of pimps and johns is the immediate source of the harms suffered by prostitutes," she wrote.

"The impugned laws deprive people engaged in a risky, but legal, activity of the means to protect themselves against those risks."

[...]

Canada high court strikes down all restrictions on prostitution - World News

And the further erosion of decent standards.

The Justice's reasoning is absurd. Or is that liberal?

I have always thought Prostitution should be legal, regulated and taxed as any other business. Heck everything else we do is government regulated, why not sex.
 
No it wasn't. And this is not about Zimmerman.
Do try to stay focused.

The court has spoken.

Your opinion is irrelevant.
 
Canada high court strikes down all restrictions on prostitution

By Randall Palmer, Reuters

OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada struck down all current restrictions on prostitution on Friday, including bans on brothels and on street solicitation, declaring the laws were unconstitutional because they violated prostitutes' safety.

The sweeping 9-0 decision will take effect in one year, inviting Parliament to try to come up with some other way to regulate the sex trade if it chooses to do so.

[...]

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin said many prostitutes "have no meaningful choice" but to "engage in the risky economic activity of prostitution," and that the law should not make such lawful activity more dangerous.

"It makes no difference that the conduct of pimps and johns is the immediate source of the harms suffered by prostitutes," she wrote.

"The impugned laws deprive people engaged in a risky, but legal, activity of the means to protect themselves against those risks."

[...]

Canada high court strikes down all restrictions on prostitution - World News

And the further erosion of decent standards.

The Justice's reasoning is absurd. Or is that liberal?

Good, adults should be free to do as they like so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others.
 
And it wasn't.
It was a supposed victory for safety.
Nothing more.
Because, as pointed out, the court left open further restriction on it.


:naughty
I said it was a further erosion of standards of decency.
That is all.
You assumed for that which you chose.

I also stated that the Judges reasoning was absurd.
Apparently you also chose to assume you knew what that meant instead of asking.






Important to me?
What a ridiculous and meaningless thing to assert.
I never said it was or wasn't important.
But with that said.
There safety is better protected by having it outlawed and strictly enforced.


You are being absurd. There has been no slinking away from what I said.
You just choose to assume that which you do not know.

This entire post is a weaseling attempt to slink away from your opposition to the legality of prostitution on the basis of "decency."

Embarrassed by it? Perhaps you should be. But you're fooling no one.
 
The court has spoken.

Your opinion is irrelevant.
:lamo
:doh
Then there is no need for this board then is there?
The Government has spoken.
You opinion doesn't matter.
Move along now.​
That is hilarious.
 
It's Canada and up to them, but the pimps are probably celebrating by beating down a ho tonight. My opinion is that it's terrible public policy.
 
Actually, if it was a liberal ruling in nature, the court would have required the government to fund free "houses of ill repute" for prostitutes to conduct business in.

This is more along the line of Canadian conservatism. We're far more concerned with keeping track of the money and how it's spent and far less interested in dictating to private citizens how they should live their lives. It may be the reverse of the liberal/conservative dynamic in the US.

More in line with the three tenets of traditional conservatism instead of the statist conservatism of the religious right in trying to have government enforce their version of what is and isn't moral. Afternoon CJ, great day in Georgia, 70 today and a bit higher tomorrow. I would love to celebrate Christmas outside in jeans and a t-shirt. BBQ a going and I will do the cooking.
 
This entire post is a weaseling attempt to slink away from your opposition to the legality of prostitution on the basis of "decency."

Embarrassed by it? Perhaps you should be. But you're fooling no one.
Wrong again. At least attempt to devote some thought to what you are saying.
 
The decision was not about personal liberty but safety.
And indecency is still indecency.

It was a crime for no reason, let me put it that way then, in terms of an American view of what the govt should and shouldnt impose on individuals...which are morals.

It was a crime for the wrong reasons, IMO, and now that is changed in Canada. It already existed...since the beginning of time so they say....if you wish to view consensual sex as 'indecent,' then that is your perogative.
 
It was a crime for no reason, let me put it that way then, in terms of an American view of what the govt should and shouldnt impose on individuals...which are morals.

It was a crime for the wrong reasons, IMO, and now that is changed in Canada. It already existed...since the beginning of time so they say....if you wish to view consensual sex as 'indecent,' then that is your perogative.
Putting it a different way doesn't change the outcome.
And it was a crime for a reason. Some just don' t find that reason justifiable, which just shows a further erosion of decency.

As far as we know the Canadian Parliament could pass a 200% tax on it, or something equally as ridiculous to try to exterminate the practice.
 
To be clear, this case has been going through the courts for the better part of a decade and had to do primarily with a "dominatrix" who operated out of her home and was charged with operating a bawdy house.

It falls in line with exceptions to the law here that allow for members only "sex clubs" to operate where for an annual fee "members" get to "play games" with other "members" in the comfort of private rooms, or public if you choose, in the establishment.

While Canada is prudish in many ways, particularly in relation to most of Europe and lots of Asia, we are often light years ahead of the US in this regard.

I will say, however, on a personal note, that unless an individual is "addicted" to sex, I find it sad that they would want to or have to resort to selling their bodies in order to be gainfully employed.
 
Last edited:
More in line with the three tenets of traditional conservatism instead of the statist conservatism of the religious right in trying to have government enforce their version of what is and isn't moral. Afternoon CJ, great day in Georgia, 70 today and a bit higher tomorrow. I would love to celebrate Christmas outside in jeans and a t-shirt. BBQ a going and I will do the cooking.

Good afternoon Pero, and you're right.

As for the weather, it's pouring rain here today - all our nice snow is becoming a slushy mess to be frozen overnight and then become a driving hazard.

If I don't see you again before then, hope you and your family have a happy, healthy, and grossly overfed Christmas.
 
Wrong again. At least attempt to devote some thought to what you are saying.

No, you're just banging your high chair now. Anyone reading sees that.

You apparently do not have the courage of your own convictions.
 
No, you're just banging your high chair now. Anyone reading sees that.

You apparently do not have the courage of your own convictions.
You are making foolish and idiotic assertions, as I have not backed down one bit from what I said.
 
Good afternoon Pero, and you're right.

As for the weather, it's pouring rain here today - all our nice snow is becoming a slushy mess to be frozen overnight and then become a driving hazard.

If I don't see you again before then, hope you and your family have a happy, healthy, and grossly overfed Christmas.

We usually do CJ, Merry Christmas to you and yours.
 
And it wasn't.
It was a supposed victory for safety.
Nothing more.
Because, as pointed out, the court left open further restriction on it.


:naughty
I said it was a further erosion of standards of decency.
That is all.
You assumed for that which you chose.

I also stated that the Judges reasoning was absurd.
Apparently you also chose to assume you knew what that meant instead of asking.






Important to me?
What a ridiculous and meaningless thing to assert.
I never said it was or wasn't important.
But with that said.
Their safety is better protected by having it outlawed and strictly enforced.


You are being absurd. There has been no slinking away from what I said.
You just choose to assume that which you do not know.

Are you incapable of answering a point directly? You lamented this ruling as a blow to 'standards of decency' and when confronted with the accusation that this would be merely an assault on anothers personal liberty by enforcing your morality you've automatically repeated the line about standards of decency. Answer the question. Why should you have the right to tell an individual what they can or cannot do with their own body?
 
Back
Top Bottom