"Canada's highest court struck down the country's anti-prostitution laws Friday, a victory for sex workers who had argued that a ban on brothels and other measures made their profession more dangerous. The ruling drew criticism from the conservative government and religious leaders."
"The court, ruling in a case brought by three women in the sex trade, struck down all three of Canada's prostitution-related laws: bans on keeping a brothel, making a living from prostitution, and street soliciting. The ruling won't take effect immediately, however, because the court gave Parliament a year to respond with new legislation, and said the existing laws would remain in place until then."
AP
15 comments:
I anticipate increased cross border traffic here abouts (Detroit/Windsor)...they now have a trick that may outdraw the 3 to 1 Casino advantage in Detroit.
BTW: Windsor never was very harsh on working girls.
Re: this and the New Mexico Supreme Court's latest antics...
Do we even need legislatures anymore?
Why all the fuss and bother?
I'm glad the Great White North will now have Brothels.
In the old days, every town had a "Red Light" district and no one seemed to suffer much.
Germany and Japan both have legalized prostitution, so its seemed to link to prosperity in some inexplicable way.
rc ... my reticence is that I'm not inclined to fuck anyone that will fuck anybody who comes along. And I have usually liked the whores I have known. I know a guy from my overseas Army days who got a 30% disability for a case of clap that left one ball about the size of a softball. Not sure how they classified that as service connected. With today's super bugs...no thanks doubled down.
What a passion for depravity on the part of our betters! They have chosen hell and therefore we must all descend with them. That is the great imperative of the age.
ampersand said...
Want to get rid of Prostitution?
Have government run brothels ,run it like the DMV.
We already have single payer education, soon it will be single payer health, then it will be single payer sex. If canada can do it, so can the US.
It is fun to watch the same people who are normally like "grr nanny state grr big government" turn around and whine that consensual sex acts aren't being sufficiently restricted for the good of society and/or the participants.
Do we even need legislatures anymore?
Why all the fuss and bother?
To prevent people from finding new ways of violating each other or the social contract and not merely to tell consenting adults that they can't be allowed to do things that make us feel icky or cheap.
If you don't like prostitutes or what they do, don't be with one. And don't be one.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Reference: " Do we even need legislatures anymore?"
To prevent people from finding new ways of violating each other or the social contract and not merely to tell consenting adults that they can't be allowed to do things ...
...like by executive office or agency rules and/or edicts, right?
Oh, wait ...
With my time in military and federal service, I can absolutely assure you that we no longer have a functional legislature, in the original sense it was formed. Further, we no longer have an semi-impartial Justice Department that will actually prosecute all law breaking when it occurs, not selectively, but happily pursues rule breakers...all on whims of the political party in power. Last thing DOJ will ever do is enforce any findings by Congress. Don't make me laugh.
Today we use the word "budget" as if it means ** sort of well nothing really but maybe a deal between adversaries to be good for a few minutes**, or something like that maybe, if it suits the boss. I can assure you the demolition of that word vis a vis federal governance is a major blow to our Republic. I worked on enough of them. Now we just use CR's aka "gravy trains" founded on prior spending and little oversight. BTW...this "deal" is not even a CR as I thought, but a "deal"
to make nice with CR's and still no formal budget. WBF(We Be Fucked)...who needs a legislature anyway?
This bullshit "pseudo-democratic republic" didn't all evolve under Obama, Bush and his daddy, plus Clinton, helped a lot to weaken traditions, but Obama definitely lined everything up, executed it, proved it can be done at will, and is doing it at will. Doncha just love how he modifies the PPACA, where authority is specifically vested in the Secretary of H&HS to invent things as she goes, without more than 2 or 3 meetings with her in over 4 years? The President literally exercises his executive power without regard to those he has appointed (aka they are stooges). All hail ... ?
Nothing since FDR has been so sweeping, or with less justification than FDR had.
Obama seems to be flirting with some extra-judicial maneuvers every now and then. But with the time it's going to take for them to be reviewed and/or reversed (if ever), the public just sees that at least he's ambitious and not just creating a colossal waste of their time and money like the opposition is. All those costly procedural rules, all this effort to revoke legislation that can't be democratically ended, it's a colossal waste. So while the GOP endlessly dithers with ever-more creative ways to subvert democracy and a functioning economy, they can bitch about Obama subverting executive procedure, and the public in the meantime sees the waste, by both political and procedural means, of unnecessarily constraining the executive who actually wants to get things done for them.
The representative gov't of 300 million+ people is a significant undertaking and when the GOP running the House (and their lackey "blue balls" Democrats) wants to get serious about helping to make it work effectively, they're free to give Obama a call.
Obama is not violating the social contract. Wherever you want to drag his ratings, they'll still never be anywhere near as low as those of the do-nothing Tea Party Congress. But the Tea Party Congress is doing the bidding of the Heritage Foundation and AEI anyway, not the American people.
Perhaps next time you could stick to addressing the legal status of prostitution in Canada (the actual point of the post)...
R & B said ...
Perhaps next time you could stick to addressing the legal status of prostitution in Canada (the actual point of the post)...
Actually, you've missed my point if that is your conclusion. I questioned your point vis a vis the need for legislatures? IMO we have already obviated them, with both parties at fault. You seem to think it is all one sided. My position is that ambitious men, such as Obama, finds a "congress" bothersome precisely because it represents the populace to be governed otherwise. I see little difference between Obama and Nixon in this regard.
BTW, prostitution per se is not now and has not been in my lifetime illegal in Canada. This is a finding by edict based on argument in a closed setting (no one gets to vote). Prostitution per se is not illegal in the USA either. It is a interpretation that defies local province and/or township control in favor of the edict.
Legislatures, representatives of those millions of citizens you cite, in and for their states, provinces, counties, or townships of residence, made the laws against prostitution. The court determined from a very cloistered position that these prohibitions were unlawful. In short, a finding against the will of the people in the jurisdictions applicable for acts not illegal otherwise. The cloistered body finds prohibition illegal.
Spare me "prohibition" arguments in re the Volstead Act. Repeal of same did not make liquor legal everywhere, it just made it legal where wanted to be so. We still have dry states, and in some cases, dry counties within states. I make the comparison to Canada's prostitution on the same grounds. An Edict replaces settle law and common law.
BTW...you are projecting on me about Obama's ratings (your phrasing, right?)...my opinion is that if he ran for office again he would win. Sad, but true. His ambition has willed out. That should please you as you believe he can do no wrong and suffers only because enemies afflict him. Nixon again, eh?
R & B said...
Obama seems to be flirting with some extra-judicial maneuver...
Fascinating. If I flirt with a red light and decide to run it, will the judge accept "flirting" as my defense? (On topic, it is still illegal here to occupy a hotel or rented room with anyone of the opposite sex that you are not married to...dates to the 1890's.)
Bush did it and it was asserted illegal. Obama does it and its "flirting"? Please.
I've dealt with three administrations (Clinton, both of Bush, & Obama) from the inside, and I suspect you are infatuated more than informed on how it all works, or doesn't. Your words have the ring of idealism. Bless you.
Nothing happened when Bush did it either so take some partisan responsibility for the consequences of the precedent you/he set.
One house of Congress is "bothersome" (actually, one faction of one party of one house, as Obama rightly put it) because it wastes a lot of time holding the economy and the government hostage to strange (or maybe you'd say "idealistic") whims that have no chance of being signed into law.
I don't care how government works. It's way too bureaucratic here. I'm just not a fan of obstruction for its own sake. If you've made a stand that only a fifth of the country supports, and it backfires on our GDP, our bond rating and on national employment, then it's time to admit that your ideological aims might not be all they're cracked up to be.
R & B ...sorry I disturbed you. You have reached conclusions about what I think without basis...e.g., you are projecting. You continue to insist opposition is bothersome. You've ignored the topic I put at 9:23 AM and 1:49 PM. That is your prerogative. You don't care how government works, but have vibrant opinions and suggestions on how it should work. Very confusing. Let's agree that we can't agree.
Post a Comment