• 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]

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,615
Reaction score
9,087
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
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?
 
Last edited:
Sounds like they got it right.
 
Well, that let's Rob Ford off the hook in one area. :2rofll:
 
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 Justices reasoning is absurd. Or is that liberal?

Awww, are you sad that you don't get to tell other people what they can do with their own bodies? Silly statist.
 
EXCELLENT and WISE decision. There will be far fewer women criminals and women can legally begin to retain their employment monies without having to have pimps and all the other illegal activity connected with illegal prostitution. It's like mmj here in CA vs ID. In ID, my illegal dealer at first tried really hard to get me to try harder drugs til he figured out the answer would always be no. Here where I'm not legal, but mmj is and my dealer is actually a legal dealer as well, never has anything except mmj been offered. When the lower "crimes" are released from the illegality, it does seem to decouple them from other worst illegalities.
 
Good news!

The bad news? The women are Canadian eh? (women in flannel wearing toques, eatin Tim Hortons' listening to Bryan Adams, not the sexiest thing I can think of)
 
Of course prostitution should be legal. Seems like the court is kind of copping out by deciding it on the basis of "safety" rather than just plain personal freedom, but the result is the result.
 
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?

What's wrong with that decision? Sounds smart to me.
 
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?
: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?
 
What's wrong with that decision? Sounds smart to me.
Of course it sounds smart to you.
It still is an erosion of decent standards.
 
:doh
The decision was not based on liberty.

Who cares what the decision was based on? Personal liberty is personal liberty. Why don't you actually try to form an argument why you think you should be able to tell people what to do with their own bodies.

Of course it sounds smart to you.
It still is an erosion of decent standards.

^^ See? You have this imaginary notion of "decent standards", which is really just you wanting to force your beliefs on others.
 
Who cares what the decision was based on? Personal liberty is personal liberty. Why don't you actually try to form an argument why you think you should be able to tell people what to do with their own bodies.



^^ See? You have this imaginary notion of "decent standards", which is really just you wanting to force your beliefs on others.
Why don't you recognize it wasn't about liberty but safety.
That is absurd reasoning.

And it is an erosion of decent standards.
 
Why don't you recognize it wasn't about liberty but safety.
That is absurd reasoning.

Either way, you're against the decision (not that you're Canadian) on the basis that it "erodes" standards of decency. So what difference does it make what basis it was decided on?
 
Why don't you recognize it wasn't about liberty but safety.
That is absurd reasoning.

And it is an erosion of decent standards.

Their decision may not have been based on liberty, but the effect is a win for personal liberty. A person can now do with their body what they choose. Why do you oppose that? Are you refusing a third time to say why or are you just going to continue to pound and stomp your feet like a child?
 
Either way, you're against the decision (not that you're Canadian) on the basis that it "erodes" standards of decency. So what difference does it make what basis it was decided on?
Keeping things in an accurate perspective.
 
It still is an erosion of decent standards.

So was the exoneration of George Zimmerman.

But the court has spoken in both cases.
 
Their decision may not have been based on liberty, but the effect is a win for personal liberty. A person can now do with their body what they choose. Why do you oppose that? Are you refusing a third time to say why or are you just going to continue to pound and stomp your feet like a child?
:doh :lamo :doh
Apparently you are the only one stomping their feet and acting like a child because you can not understand that I gave my answer.
 
Keeping things in an accurate perspective.

To what end? According to you, it's wrong either way. You'd have the court uphold your notion of "decency."
 
So was the exoneration of George Zimmerman.

But the court has spoken in both cases.
No it wasn't. And this is not about Zimmerman.
Do try to stay focused.
 
To what end? According to you, it's wrong either way. You'd have the court uphold your notion of "decency."

If you do not understand the need to keep the facts accurate, I can not help you.
 
To what end? According to you, it's wrong either way. You'd have the court uphold your notion of "decency."

Hey bro, have you heard an explanation for why he opposes personal liberty? I keep asking him but now he's saying he already told me.
 
Great news! This is a victory for the safety of these women and adds more freedom to the lives of Canadians. Hopefully this will happen in the US one day.
 
If you do not understand the need to keep the facts accurate, I can not help you.

The facts are, whatever basis the court decided what it decided, personal freedom was increased, which is what RabidAlpaca said.

The facts also are that you oppose both the safety and personal freedom of the prostitutes based on your notions of "decency."

^^^^^^^^^^

Stated in the interest of accuracy, of course.
 
Back
Top Bottom