• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Canada's Anti-Prostitution Laws Struck Down

ok so

any legalites in here?

what's the deal for real? Does the ruling now make it legal to pay for a prostitute and have sex with the prostitute, or is this just something so prostitutes' actions aren't illegal but johns' actions are?
 
It's not legal yet. From what I understand, the government has 3 months to appeal it before the ruling goes into affect (based purely on radio heresay).

I believe the government may also request the judge give them some time to put a new law in place so you don't go from having stupid rules to no rules, but I don't remember where I got the second idea from.

Walt
 
Madalch said:
I'm sure they'll be drafting laws immediately. Even if they don't re-criminalize it, they'll certainly want to require licenses for brothels.
Click to expand...
Why do you think requiring licenses is a bad thing?
 
Mark6 said:
Why do you think requiring licenses is a bad thing?
Click to expand...
Why on Earth would you think that I thought it was a bad thing? I'm simply saying that there's no way the government's going to shrug and ignore this issue for any length of time. If prostitution is to be legalized, it damn well better be strictly regulated- mandatory health exams, strict minimum ages, that sort of thing.
 
Captain.Sassy said:
ok so

any legalites in here?

what's the deal for real? Does the ruling now make it legal to pay for a prostitute and have sex with the prostitute, or is this just something so prostitutes' actions aren't illegal but johns' actions are?
Click to expand...
There's a 30 day stay on the effect of the decision. So the laws are currently still in force. The govt can apply to get the stay extended. The decision will be appealed, likely all the way to the Supreme Court, so it will be at least a year or two before it is resolved one way or another.

Also, the laws that were struck down were just three of the many provisions on prostitution. I'm not sure what the ultimate ramifications are. The decision was just published today and I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but here it is:

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2010/2010onsc4264/2010onsc4264.html
 
Yo,

If you're good at law stuff and you were planning to read the whole thing anyways, could you let me know what your investigation are? I'm really curious as to whether johns can still get charged under the amended legislation. (yep I understand that the changes don't come into effect for a while)
 
D'rok said:
Reading now. The good part is here:

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2010/2010onsc4264/2010onsc4264.html#_Toc270411917
Click to expand...

Random impression so far:

The Supreme Court of Canada has considered the constitutionality of some of these same provisions already (Prostitution Reference, 1990) and found them to be constitutional. This Ontario Superior Court Judge has overturned at least part of that decision and has distinguished (i.e., argued that the facts in this case mean that a different ruling is appropriate) at least one other part.

That takes balls. And is very vulnerable to appeal.

ETA: Just to elaborate on this a bit. She is arguing that the minority opinion in the Prositution Reference wrt communicating for the purpose of prostitution should now prevail. This is an invitation to the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision. Gutsy.
 
Last edited:
Captain.Sassy said:
Yo,

If you're good at law stuff and you were planning to read the whole thing anyways, could you let me know what your investigation are? I'm really curious as to whether johns can still get charged under the amended legislation. (yep I understand that the changes don't come into effect for a while)
Click to expand...
Just to be clear...the legislation (i.e., the Criminal Code of Canada) has not been amended. Three provisions have been struck down by the Ontario Superior Court.

But, to answer your question, I'm pretty sure johns can still get charged even if the decision stands. Or at least they can in some circumstances. The provision that deals with that wasn't challenged. Specifically, this one:

213. (1) Every person who in a public place or in any place open to public view
(a) stops or attempts to stop any motor vehicle,
(b) impedes the free flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic or ingress to or egress from premises adjacent to that place, or
(c) stops or attempts to stop any person or in any manner communicates or attempts to communicate with any person
for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or of obtaining the sexual services of a prostitute is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
 
Last edited:
Thread title should have been 'Prostitution laws go down in Canada' :blush:

ETA: better yet "Canadian Judge goes down on Prostitution"
 
Last edited:
D'rok said:
Just to be clear...the legislation (i.e., the Criminal Code of Canada) has not been amended. Three provisions have been struck down by the Ontario Superior Court.

But, to answer your question, I'm pretty sure johns can still get charged even if the decision stands. Or at least they can in some circumstances. The provision that deals with that wasn't challenged. Specifically, this one:

213. (1) Every person who in a public place or in any place open to public view
(a) stops or attempts to stop any motor vehicle,
(b) impedes the free flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic or ingress to or egress from premises adjacent to that place, or
(c) stops or attempts to stop any person or in any manner communicates or attempts to communicate with any person
for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or of obtaining the sexual services of a prostitute is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Click to expand...

Hi.

Thanks for the informed opinion, I appreciate your commentary!

This is kind of what I suspected would be the case. I'm far from a legalist, so my hunch was just based on what people in favour of the changes (I'm not clear on the distinction between 'amended' or 'struck down' :P) were saying on the news in response to the judge's ruling (ruling?)

Cheers,
CS
 
Captain.Sassy said:
Hi.

Thanks for the informed opinion, I appreciate your commentary!

This is kind of what I suspected would be the case. I'm far from a legalist, so my hunch was just based on what people in favour of the changes (I'm not clear on the distinction between 'amended' or 'struck down' :P) were saying on the news in response to the judge's ruling (ruling?)

Cheers,
CS
Click to expand...
Oops! Don't thank me yet. I posted the provision that was actually struck down!

I meant to post this:

213. (1) Every person who in a public place or in any place open to public view
(a) stops or attempts to stop any motor vehicle,
(b) impedes the free flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic or ingress to or egress from premises adjacent to that place
for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or of obtaining the sexual services of a prostitute is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Click to expand...

213.(1)(c) has been struck, therefore johns cannot be charged under that provision. But they could be charged under (a) or (b) if the circumstances were correct.
 
D'rok said:
Just to be clear...the legislation (i.e., the Criminal Code of Canada) has not been amended. Three provisions have been struck down by the Ontario Superior Court.

But, to answer your question, I'm pretty sure johns can still get charged even if the decision stands. Or at least they can in some circumstances. The provision that deals with that wasn't challenged. Specifically, this one:

213. (1) Every person who in a public place or in any place open to public view
(a) stops or attempts to stop any motor vehicle,
(b) impedes the free flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic or ingress to or egress from premises adjacent to that place, or
(c) stops or attempts to stop any person or in any manner communicates or attempts to communicate with any person
for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or of obtaining the sexual services of a prostitute is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Click to expand...

Ack. Just quoting myself to correct my error. I accidentally copied and pasted the whole of section 213 and forgot to exclude 213(1)(c), the provision that was found unconstitutional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom