Supreme Court unanimously strikes down Canada's anti-prostitution laws

http://scc-csc.lexum.com/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13389/index.do

Interesting times...

A summary of the decision by the Pivot Legal team..

http://www.pivotlegal.org/canada_v_bedford_a_synopsis_of_the_supreme_court_of_canada_ruling

What changes, if any, will occur as a result of this decision?

Unfortunately it sounds like the courts are giving them a year to introduce new legislation. Let's hope they either a) do nothing or b) do something sensible. I think that's probably a little much to ask for though.

Unfortunately it sounds like the courts are giving them a year to introduce new legislation. Let's hope they either a) do nothing or b) do something sensible. I think that's probably a little much to ask for though.

Yes, this is definitely the fly in the ointment. For anyone who watched the arguments before the supreme court, it was really clear how the government arguments were so logically inconsistent, cobbled together and really had no integrity.

So, definitely some good news.

Porthos

Can anyone explain how it affects anyone who is currently on trial or might be 'caught' committing any of these offenses before the year passes?

Ex, if someone hired a bodyguard and that person was caught for "living of the avails", will that person (if currently on trial, or caught before the 1 year time period) still be charged for an offense?

What about those who are already in prison, or an ex-con because of these convictions that were ruled unconstitutional?

Edit: The article answered part of my question here - "The court's decision will be suspended for one year, meaning that the laws will stand as they are..."

Not to be a downer, but with the conservatives in power, is anyone afraid they might outright make everything to do with sex work including 'prostitution' illegal as a reaction?

Just finished reading the decision (the french version). Well written, i found, and a very interesting read. What the legislator will actually do remains to be seen.

Can anyone explain how it affects anyone who is currently on trial or might be 'caught' committing any of these offenses before the year passes?

 

Ex, if someone hired a bodyguard and that person was caught for "living of the avails", will that person (if currently on trial, or caught before the 1 year time period) still be charged for an offense?

 

What about those who are already in prison, or an ex-con because of these convictions that were ruled unconstitutional?

From my understanding, the existing laws stay in force for a year while parliament has the opportunity to enact new law. In the interim it really depends on the police and prosecutors whether it is business as usual.

Unfortunately it sounds like the courts are giving them a year to introduce new legislation. Let's hope they either a) do nothing or b) do something sensible. I think that's probably a little much to ask for though.

So, what do you think Harper and his cronies will do about this? Can they pass laws to make prostitution illegal, thus rendering the Supreme Court ruling moot?

It's all politics and most people are under society's chains. In my opinion, this case may take years or never decide on a decision. I believe they will prolong any decision as long as they can.

Apparently, the justice minister has stated that he is concerned by the outcome, and is exploring any and all options to ensure that new laws surrounding prostitution in Canada will be crafted in a way that reflects the conservative ideology as closely as possible.

So, what do you think Harper and his cronies will do about this? Can they pass laws to make prostitution illegal, thus rendering the Supreme Court ruling moot?

That's a very good question drlove.

thought provoking, if not altogether disheartening

From my understanding, the existing laws stay in force for a year while parliament has the opportunity to enact new law. In the interim it really depends on the police and prosecutors whether it is business as usual.

That's correct. In fact this has been the case for the last several years since the lower courts ruled that the laws were unconstitutional. The Ontario decision for example was also "stayed" for a period of time to allow for an appeal to the Supreme Court.

As in recent years, the Crown will only pursue prostitution cases which have not been affected by this decision (e.g. underage); there is real harm (e.g. physical abuse by pimps, human trafficking).

The other category of enforcement which will continue will to be in response to complaints from neighbours... so continue to be discrete.

That's a very good question drlove.

thought provoking, if not altogether disheartening

The other thing I've been hearing today is talk around invoking the Nordic model, which would have the effect of criminalizing the client. What I don't particularly understand is this: Would not the Nordic model simply put the shoe on the other foot as it were, and still do nothing to resolve issues surrounding the safety of SPs? I don't see how this would be an acceptable solution bearing in mind the court's decision.

Secondly, would not making prostitution illegal decrease safety levels for the ladies? In the States, the industry is thriving underground - undoubtedly, it would not simply cease to exist in Canada, either. Furthermore, on what grounds could the government make it illegal? The courts are not in the business of legislating morality, yet this appears to be the framework around which Conservative ideology is based.

I studied this case in my Criminology class last year so I've been keeping an eye on it. I was confident the SCC would strike it down. It'll definitely be an interesting/exciting year. Hoping for some good changes to come.

From my understanding, the existing laws stay in force for a year while parliament has the opportunity to enact new law. In the interim it really depends on the police and prosecutors whether it is business as usual.

I haven't got the chance to look at the decision, but it seems paradoxical to strike down a law and still have it in effect. The SCC was the last chance for the Government to make restore the current laws.

Usually in such circumstances, the Government can't rely on the current laws in any ongoing trial.

This makes me sooo happy :-)

While I hope for the best, nothing in the record of The Harper Government suggests the government will allow women entrepreneurs to establish and conduct their own business in an area most members of the Government seem to feel is morally repugnant.

Even what I feel would be the best course - do nothing - is not likely to have what I consider the desired outcome. Effectively, the Federal Government would be downloading the morality issue to the Provinces and Municipalities wherein there is no shortage of people holding to the same moral compass. I see regulation and licencing up the ying-yang to the point where anyone doing anything will run afoul of some regulation or the other and be shut down.

Having said that, I'm returning to my original statement. I'm hoping for the best.

In the meantime, I'll worry about the effects of publicly criticizing The Harper Government.

Hooray! One small step for a court, one giant leap for a system of laws.

It's true, the current laws remain in full effect for the coming year, and we don't know what new laws Parliament might pass in the year that's available to it. But at least we won't see a mindless restoration of the laws almost-as-they-were; the court's rationale remains in place to guide whatever is coming.

I think at least now there's a fresh conversation to be had in the public square. The ruling by the Supreme Court will create some new awareness of the issues involved, and at the same time its ruling weakens the knee-jerk responses of old that just appealed to shallow conservative tradition.

we'll see what 2014 brings. But I'm optimistic for the long-term.

Much like the outdated marijuana laws......this is going to take awhile.

Peace

MG

Concluding that each of the challenged provisions violates the Charter does not mean that Parliament is precluded from imposing limits on where and how prostitution may be conducted, as long as it does so in a way that does not infringe the constitutional rights of prostitutes. The regulation of prostitution is a complex and delicate matter. It will be for Parliament, should it choose to do so, to devise a new approach, reflecting different elements of the existing regime. Considering all the interests at stake, the declaration of invalidity should be suspended for one year.

This is worrisome. Why would they do that? This is the highest court. It just tells me how political this case is!

I can't understand how can a Superior Court judge have more balls than a panel of SCC when he declared invalidity effective immediately.

So, what do you think Harper and his cronies will do about this? Can they pass laws to make prostitution illegal, thus rendering the Supreme Court ruling moot?

I think this could easily be a case of being careful what we ask for. We just got it, but that doesn't mean the end result will be better. The court seemed to even go as far as to stress that they weren't commenting on the legality of prostitution, but just that the current laws create dangerous work environment.

The problem is we currently have a government that has moral problems with the legality of prostitution. They are NOT going to do something overly progressive and helpful. They MAY make it illegal all together. I'm hoping they just let this go rather than stir the pot, because it isn't an issue they would have chosen to open if it wasn't thrust upon them. Then a future government can tackle the issue. I'm doubtful though. Why ask the court to give them time to write new legislation if they don't want to inject their morals into this issue?

This ain't over yet, folks.