Legalizing Prostitution in Canada

So it looks like it could happen. Not immediately mind you but in the next few years. As the Ontario court of Appeal declared most anti-prostitution laws un-constitutional

Full transcription:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Ontario’s highest court has legalized brothels in a sweeping decision that condemned current prostitution laws for adding to the hazards of a highly dangerous profession.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the Crown just one victory, ruling that communicating for the purposes of prostitution will remain illegal.

The landmark decision is binding on Ontario courts and sets up a final showdown at the Supreme Court of Canada next fall or in early 2013.

Ontario Attorney-General John Gerretsen said on Monday that he intends to discuss appealing the decision with his federal counterparts. “Our main concern is that people feel safe in their communities, feel safe in their homes, and this kind of issue may very well need legislative action,” he said.

The five-judge appellate panel said unanimously that prostitutes may set up brothels and hire staff to protect them. They said that it is senseless to have a law that compels prostitutes to work in dangerous isolation, given that prostitution itself is legal.

The judges also explicitly rejected a Crown argument that prostitutes make an informed decision to enter a dangerous trade, saying that prostitutes deserve as much protection as other citizens who work in “dangerous, but legal, enterprises.”

However, the court majority – Mr. Justice David Doherty, Mr. Justice Marc Rosenberg and Madam Justice Kathryn Feldman – salvaged the communication provision on the basis that it has kept neighbourhoods free of organized crime, drugs, noise and unwanted solicitations.

They played down arguments from prostitution activists that those it hurts most are marginalized street prostitutes who work in the shadows and must assess potential clients hastily.

Mr. Justice James MacPherson and Madame Justice Eleanore Cronk took sharp issue with the majority on the point, arguing that the communication provision significantly worsens the plight of street prostitutes.

“The violence faced by street prostitutes across Canada is, in a word, overwhelming,” they said. “One does not need to conjure up the face of Robert Pickton to know that this is true.”

The brothel ruling takes effect in a year. However, as of April 25, prostitutes can engage bodyguards. The court remodelled the pimping provision to target only those who live off the avails of prostitution “in circumstances of exploitation.”

The Sex Professionals of Canada immediately urged Ontario municipalities to begin discussing licensing provisions that will ensure health and safety of brothel workers and their clients.

Municipalities are expected to create a patchwork of regulation. Many, such as Niagara Falls, already license body-rub parlours. About 40 workers are employed in the city’s four licensed parlours. Toronto has 25 body-rub parlours and 482 licensed workers.

Eddie Francis, mayor of Windsor, Ont., said his planning staff are looking at zoning issues that isolate brothels from schools and family neighbourhoods without creating red-light districts.

Meanwhile, police forces are split on the logic and propriety of continuing “sweeps” of body-rub parlours in search of prostitutes and their clients.

“We stopped doing sweeps after the last decision and told our people that if there were problems, there are other laws they could use to deal with them,” said Toronto Police Service spokesman Mark Pugash. “We see little reason to change that.”

However, York Regional Police Chief Eric Jolliffe said that his force “continues to be bound by the laws that exist today and our obligation is to uphold the law as it is now.”

Prostitution activists hailed Monday’s decision as a historic victory.

“Six out of six judges so far have concluded that the law does not work and is hurting people,” said York University law professor Alan Young, the lawyer for the women who launched the constitutional challenge.

Valerie Scott, one of the litigants, said that prostitutes have a sense of belonging for the first time. “I feel like a debutante,” she said. “I feel like a citizen.”

Ms. Scott said that brothels have always existed in the shadows. “There is a brothel on every block in every city, and there always has been,” she said.

Nikki Thomas, executive director of SPOC, told reporters that prostitutes will be normal citizens who file income taxes, purchase investments and quietly go about their work. “We are not going to have fire and brimstone and sex workers raining down from the sky,” she said.

The Court of Appeal noted on Monday that Parliament is not precluded from enacting new prostitution laws provided they do not heighten the danger to prostitutes.

Very interesting. I predict that the next acts played out will be the appeal made by the attorney general and the ensuing affirmation of the ruling, followed shortly by most Canadian municipalities doing their best to fight this through ridiculous zoning and ordinance laws, quite a bit of which will be litigated and overturned.

The only place this goes from the Court of Appeals is the Supreme Court of Canada. But were I the prohibition side I'd simple abandon Ontario and fight the battle in the other provinces. As if they loose in the Supreme Court it applies to the whole country. I doubt they will of course. Still I'd be surprised if the Supreme Court didn't up hold the ruling. If you can make a clear argument that any legislation violates the Constitutions charter of rights and freedoms, the courts will side with you. As Canadian courts take their role of upholding the Constitution VERY seriously. Look at gay marriage, used a violation of the charter argument. But this isn't as clear a case of discrimination. It's more about making a profession people are uncomfortable with hard to ply, rather than making some people second class citizens.

Legalized prostitution just means taxed prostitution, just being lenient is better. You are making things worse this way, legal prostitutes will always be more expensive than illegal ones, it will only lead to more abuse. It's all so simple, turn a blind eye when you can, and act if you must.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Legalized prostitution just means taxed prostitution, just being lenient is better. You are making things worse this way, legal prostitutes will always be more expensive than illegal ones, it will only lead to more abuse. It's all so simple, turn a blind eye when you can, and act if you must.

---

Frags, are you really claiming that Prostitutes who work illegally are going to have things worse than an illegal one who might work for a pimp and would have no legal recourse if she were abused?

Abused is good, as long as it keeps prices down?

Will legalizing prostitution make it better for the women? I'm not so sure.

I hardly expect respectable women to become prostitutes now and respectable businessmen to create a brothel brand - Here, at Millenium Brothels(tm), your satisfaction is our number one concern. I just don't see it happening.

More sinister brothels will remain underground and you will still be required to try to close them in the old fashioned way.

Huh, I was going to say something, but all I can think of is the thought I had that the worlds oldest profession becoming legalized would result in unionised prostitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Frags, are you really claiming that Prostitutes who work illegally are going to have things worse than an illegal one who might work for a pimp and would have no legal recourse if she were abused?

---

Legal ones will be better off, the illegal ones that WILL still exist so much worse, prices will just drop and the state can shrug it off pointing to a few words that only exist on paper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Legal ones will be better off, the illegal ones that WILL still exist so much worse, prices will just drop and the state can shrug it off pointing to a few words that only exist on paper

---

You can't enact a law like this, where the majority of workers in the industry will benefit, just because the minority of workers will get worse conditions working in a way that is outside of that law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

You can't enact a law like this, where the majority of workers in the industry will benefit, just because the minority of workers will get worse conditions working in a way that is outside of that law.

---

Screw the law when you can be pragmatic, how hard can it be to simply not arrest prostitutes unless there is a need to act because they are abused. You simply can't control the undercurrents, so simply don't try just because you like how good it looks on paper. you will do more harm than good

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Huh, I was going to say something, but all I can think of is the thought I had that the worlds oldest profession becoming legalized would result in unionised prostitution.

---

Done, over here. Don't know anything about its effectiveness, though.

Quote:

---

you will do more harm than good

---

Can you demonstrate that this has consistently been the case in units where prostitution was legalized, taking into account distinct degrees of legalization?

At any rate, I demand a high standard of health and safety and convenient location!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Screw the law when you can be pragmatic, how hard can it be to simply not arrest prostitutes unless there is a need to act because they are abused. You simply can't control the undercurrents, so simply don't try just because you like how good it looks on paper. you will do more harm than good

---

What? By keeping it illegal you are, by definition, putting prostitutes into a realm where there are no laws. That means that they can be abused, exploited and all manner of terrible things and there is nothing that they can do to stop this because there are no laws protecting them. If you legalise it you can create a legal framework where they can be protected and where they can enter a court against their employer for being forced to do things that they don't want to. In a vulnerable profession like this one, surely that is one of the most important things that we can do for the workers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Done, over here.

---

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The only control there is is tax collectors, outpricing any decency that exists in that trade. It's a vicious trade that is completely out of control because of control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

What? By keeping it illegal you are, by definition, putting prostitutes into a realm where there are no laws. That means that they can be abused, exploited and all manner of terrible things and there is nothing that they can do to stop this because there are no laws protecting them. If you legalise it you can create a legal framework where they can be protected and where they can enter a court against their employer for being forced to do things that they don't want to. In a vulnerable profession like this one, surely that is one of the most important things that we can do for the workers.

---

Law law law, this is a different sphere, a sphere the people writing all that cool stuff don't understand. It doesn't apply.

I'm quite aware that prostitution in the Netherlands isn't the best work environment ever, allthough I admit I don't know anything about it except general knowledge. And I join CountArach in not understanding your arguments at all- for starters,

1) why should legalized prostitution be more expensive? It shouldn't be, unless it's seriously overtaxed
2) for those prostitutes operating outside the law, why would they be worse off if they have competition from legal prostitution?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

I'm quite aware that prostitution in the Netherlands isn't the best work environment ever, allthough I admit I don't know anything about it except general knowledge. And I join CountArach in not understanding your arguments at all- for starters,

1) why should legalized prostitution be more expensive? It shouldn't be, unless it's seriously overtaxed
2) for those prostitutes operating outside the law, why would they be worse off if they have competition from legal prostitution?

---

They have to pay taxes so they are more expensive, state as a pimp it's disgusting.

Take a drive to the Europalaan if you want to see what it really looks like

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

They have to pay taxes so they are more expensive, state as a pimp it's disgusting.

---

I'm not suggesting nationalising prostitution :inquisitive:

Frag, if you aren't going to provide any argument or substantiation of your claims then there is no point discussing this with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

I'm not suggesting nationalising prostitution :inquisitive:

Frag, if you aren't going to provide any argument or substantiation of your claims then there is no point discussing this with you.

---

Are you a bit daft perhaps? If you tax it it will be more expensive. No?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Are you a bit daft perhaps? If you tax it it will be more expensive. No?

---

If it is illegal it will be more expensive. Because you are breaking the law. Which implies risk. It isn't that hard to figure out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

I'm quite aware that prostitution in the Netherlands isn't the best work environment ever, allthough I admit I don't know anything about it except general knowledge. And I join CountArach in not understanding your arguments at all- for starters,

1) why should legalized prostitution be more expensive? It shouldn't be, unless it's seriously overtaxed
2) for those prostitutes operating outside the law, why would they be worse off if they have competition from legal prostitution?

---

Smoking is legal, but there is still a thriving black market. Prostitutes are either self-employed or they have pimps. My guess is that most of the pretty ones are unready well paid and self employed, their margins go up, they put the prices up, they spend a bit more time at the gym, eat more citrus fruit. The pimps? They beat the whores more because the prices have gone up, or they don't go legal and they suck in formally independant prostitues to their brothals because they can't afford to put their prices up. Don't forget, quite a few women on the game have habits to fund or can't manage to find other work.

What Frag is saying is that legalising it doesn't get rid of the ugle underbelly, it just distracts you from it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

If it is illegal it will be more expensive. Because you are breaking the law. Which implies risk. It isn't that hard to figure out.

---

Sorry but I disagree, there is nothing that will see it like that. CAN YOU PLEASE wise up

Fragony: are you, by any chance, in favor of legalizing slavery?

Having a bad day?

Of course it's a no-brainer that taxing something will add expense. On the other hand, CountArach is also right that illegal activities carry their risks and that, too, inevitably adds expense. Provided that the government puts serious effort into fighting illegal prostitution, pimps and ho's will realize that the risks of avoiding taxes and other regulations outweigh the burdens of respecting them; then the vast majority will abide by the rules. Of course there will always be a niche for the illegal market, the whole point is to keep that niche as small as possible.

Without taking a stance on whether it should be legal or illegal, it should be noted that Fragony may have a point.

Illegal: no regulations whatsoever to respect (not sure if that's a good thing, obviously...);
Legal: you'll need an accountant. Taxes. VAT (do you know how much paperwork VAT takes for an honest business(wo)man? It's insane, at least in Belgium it is, certainly if you're a small one-(wo)man business, it's really hard to deal with it. And if you're alone, hiring somebody to do it for you is very expensive). Taxes. Oh, and taxes. And of course taxes. You'll probably also need some sort of a license, various permits, civil servants and politicians to deal with, probably a few disgruntled neighours who don't agree with a brothel next to them and let's face it, paying a lawyer to defend you in some lawsuit is more expensive then hiring some muscles to make the neighbour shut up. Or just let the annoying neighbour visit your business once a month for free. Paperwork, paperwork, paperwork, because governments have a tendency to give an honest business(wo)man shiploads of paperwork to do, etc etc. Paperwork increases costs. Insurance will be needed as well. Maybe some strict regulations on let's say safety. And we're not even talking about all the paperwork that needs to be done when you hire employees. And social security. Oh yes, that too. So no, making it legal won't make it cheaper for the customer, on the contrary. The government and all its' regulations will be way more expensive then even the most greedy pimp.

I'm also not sure that, given the sphere in which this particular profession takes place, making it legal will improve the working conditions.

By making it legal, you'll be suffocating the honest businessmen and women involved in prostitution.

Why is price an issue anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

I'm also not sure that, given the sphere in which this particular profession takes place, making it legal will improve the working conditions.

---

Mandatory health checks and such will improve it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Smoking is legal, but there is still a thriving black market.

---

Quote:

---

What Frag is saying is that legalising it doesn't get rid of the ugle underbelly, it just distracts you from it.

---

But thats cos the government duty is high in order to drive government revenues up.

They say it's to make people give up but I doubt it to be honest, notice how they always seem to ensure it doesnt drive inflation up too much when they rise the price.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

That means that they can be abused, exploited and all manner of terrible things and there is nothing that they can do to stop this because there are no laws protecting them.

---

Are you now saying that, in the current state of affairs, it is perfectly legal to abuse and exploit people and all manner of terrible things?

Isn't there already a legal framework that protects people against slavery and against forcing people to do things they don't want to do?

I wasn't aware that what you are describing there is now legal? So surely, to avoid people being exploited and abused can't be the motivation to legalize prostitution, since those kinds of things are already forbidden...

I think it would be a terrible mistake to think that legalizing prostitution will suddenly stop all of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

But thats cos the government duty is high in order to drive government revenues up.

They say it's to make people give up but I doubt it to be honest, notice how they always seem to ensure it doesnt drive inflation up too much when they rise the price.

---

That's one of the reasons proponents put forward, but I've never heard a politician say it. Our government has never made it a secret that it's a source of income, everything else seems to be afterthought.

Not unlike that Russian minister who encouraged the people to smoke and drink more in order to help the treasury.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

That's one of the reasons proponents put forward, but I've never heard a politician say it. Our government has never made it a secret that it's a source of income, everything else seems to be afterthought.

Not unlike that Russian minister who encouraged the people to smoke and drink more in order to help the treasury.

---

We havent put the price of Drink up in a while here cos the industry itself has had to raise prices due to rising commodities, so we can be fairly sure governments are ensuring revenue by not making it conducive to give up drinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Will legalizing prostitution make it better for the women? I'm not so sure.

I hardly expect respectable women to become prostitutes now and respectable businessmen to create a brothel brand - Here, at Millenium Brothels(tm), your satisfaction is our number one concern. I just don't see it happening.

More sinister brothels will remain underground and you will still be required to try to close them in the old fashioned way.

---

It should be noted that in Canada the actual concept of paying someone for sex isn't illegal. What is illegal is any conceivable way to ply and profit from that trade. The court ruling strikes down 2 such laws as unconstitutional, and mandates changing a third (about pimping). But leaves 1 about advertising in place.

Has anyone thought of Germany?
In brothels here the prostitutes usually rent a room and pay rent to the owner. That means no problems with so many employees and they take care of their own healthcare.
As such they are self-employed and just rent their workshop from a brothel owner.
Also don't forget demand, your average consumer may well be willing to pay a little more to go to a legal establishment because that way his own risks are far lower and he doesn't become a criminal himself.
You still get the underground scene most likely but it's reduced because the legal business gobbles up a large chunk of the demand.
Better to improve it for some than for noone?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Fragony: are you, by any chance, in favor of legalizing slavery?

---

No- but I am familiar with lefttist logic

Quote:

---

No- but I am familiar with lefttist logic

---

Can't say the same regarding yours.

Quote:

---

Has anyone thought of Germany?
In brothels here the prostitutes usually rent a room and pay rent to the owner. That means no problems with so many employees and they take care of their own healthcare.
As such they are self-employed and just rent their workshop from a brothel owner.
Also don't forget demand, your average consumer may well be willing to pay a little more to go to a legal establishment because that way his own risks are far lower and he doesn't become a criminal himself.
You still get the underground scene most likely but it's reduced because the legal business gobbles up a large chunk of the demand.
Better to improve it for some than for noone?!

---

Most people today are willing (at least implicitly) to pay higher food prices for higher quality and safety. The same principle should apply to prostitution. Someone who wants a $10 back-alley blowjob, is unable to pass a prior health screening, or unwilling to undergo the process, will still be able to obtain such an illegal service, and the risk of venereal disease that accompanies it.

To answer more or less of the concerns raised by patrons regarding legalisation: why not legislation that introduces graduated, increasing levels of regulatory burden over a decade or two? This gives time for everyone to acclimate, for some of the social stigma of being/relating with a prostitute to diminish, for collective organizations representing multiple prostitutes to arise (to distribute the burden, provide health care, etc.), and for the legal collectivities to edge out well-established illegal sources?

Society will continue to bear its share of marginal members no matter what legislation is enforced (unless it sets up the ultimate police state). Why, for the potential (highly dubious, that) sake of a very few of these, should the conditions of heightened risk to physical and all other sorts of well-being, as well as diminished legal and social standing, be pressed upon an entire subset of occupations?

Rescuing hookers from the difficulties of running a 'small business' isn't a good excuse either...

Something something...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

But thats cos the government duty is high in order to drive government revenues up.

They say it's to make people give up but I doubt it to be honest, notice how they always seem to ensure it doesnt drive inflation up too much when they rise the price.

---

I think it's because, politically speaking, they have to be seen to be doing something to discourage people. High taxes on cigs are a political win-win viz raising taxes.

I imagine prostitution would be the same.

The good news is that it brings at least part of the trade within the law. The people involved in a legitimate exchange of services have recourse to the law; huge step in the right direction.

Will there be illegitimate activity? Yes. The good news is that resources now spent chasing "no harm no foul" types of cases can be re-directed to deal with activity that causes real harm.

As to the "moral" dimension: I believe Christ did not exclude prostitutes from the congregation; should we then exclude them from society and the protection they deserve as citizens?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

The good news is that it brings at least part of the trade within the law. The people involved in a legitimate exchange of services have recourse to the law; huge step in the right direction.

Will there be illegitimate activity? Yes. The good news is that resources now spent chasing "no harm no foul" types of cases can be re-directed to deal with activity that causes real harm.

---

Will that happen though?

Also, you have to ask, after this will girls still be "forced into prostitution" or will they just be "working in poor conditions."

There's a siesmic shift in making such an inherrently seedy and morally ambiguous proffession legal and legitimate - it ceses to be seen as a form of abuse, which is a big part of why it was made illegal to begin with.

[/quote]As to the "moral" dimension: I believe Christ did not exclude prostitutes from the congregation; should we then exclude them from society and the protection they deserve as citizens?[/QUOTE]

He excluded no one who repented - but is line on sexual mores is unremittingly harsh and draconian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

There's a siesmic shift in making such an inherrently seedy and morally ambiguous proffession legal and legitimate - it ceses to be seen as a form of abuse, which is a big part of why it was made illegal to begin with.

---

I think you are conflating prostitution and abuse. The two can be separated, and often are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I think you are conflating prostitution and abuse. The two can be separated, and often are.

---

I think your and misunderstanding me.

Prostitution is not necessarily abuse, but pimps are usually abusive, giving prostitution a veneer of respectability by making it legal has the potential to turn them into just "bad employers" which in turn has the potential to increase the abuse because the abused women are no more likely to file a civil suit than go to the police.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I think your and misunderstanding me.

Prostitution is not necessarily abuse, but pimps are usually abusive, giving prostitution a veneer of respectability by making it legal has the potential to turn them into just "bad employers" which in turn has the potential to increase the abuse because the abused women are no more likely to file a civil suit than go to the police.

---

If the act prostition is illegal, the prostitutes are less likely to go to the police as they'll face prosecution themselves. If it's pimping that is illegal, pimps will have (further) incentive to coerce women into submission as to prevent them from going to the police. If the customers are the ones who can be prosecuted, that opens the way to extortion and blackmail, and further encourages the coercion of prostitutes in order to keep their mouths shut, even if only to protect the clients.

It seems pretty obvious that having legal and regulated prostitution at least opens the possibility of effectively reducing the abuse. I've seen several people here argue that legalizing will make things worse, but not a lot of arguments to back that up, or at least not convincing ones.