Prostitution in Canada

[McCulloch]

While prostitution itself is not illegal in Canada, almost everything associated with it is, a situation that one judge of the Supreme Court of Canada once acknowledged as bizarre. It is illegal to solicit for the purposes of prostitution. It is illegal to ask for pay for sex or to offer to pay for sex. It is also illegal to live off the avails, so third party to the sex transaction cannot be legally paid. It is also illegal to run a common bawdy house, thus it is against the law to have a place where prostitution is the business.

These laws are now being challenged in court. The argument is that prohibitions on keeping a common bawdy house, communicating for the purposes of prostitution and living on the avails of the trade force sex workers from the safety of their homes to the insecurity of the street, where they are exposed to physical and psychological violence.

Questions for debate: How should the courts rule? Should the legislation be struck down? If our government wants to make prostitution illegal, shouldn't they just make it illegal? Are there good arguments apart from religiously inspired morality to make the sex trade against the law?

[East of Eden]

Then you would have no objection to laws inspired by the morality of the Islamic religion. Laws that absolutely prohibit alcohol,

I grew up in a town like that.

or laws that absolutely prohibit any kind of "Homosexuality and Lesbianism."

We had laws like that for most of our country's history.

Or how about these "Five crimes known as the Hadd offenses, committing them is considered an affront to God. They are:

• * Wine-drinking and, by extension, alcohol-drinking, punishable by flogging
  
  * Unlawful sexual intercourse, punishable by flogging for unmarried offenders and stoning to death for adulterers
  
  * False accusation of unlawful sexual intercourse, punishable by flogging
  
  * Theft, punishable by the amputation of a hand
  
  * Highway robbery, punishable by amputation, or execution if the crime results in a homicide.
  source

Or were you thinking that America should have laws influenced only by the morality of the Christian religion?

If America ever becomes majority Muslim, or Hindu, or whatever else, I'll answer your blizzard of hypothetical questions. Until then, my motivation for my vote is none of your business.

[Miles]

Or were you thinking that America should have laws influenced only by the morality of the Christian religion?

If America ever becomes majority Muslim, or Hindu, or whatever else, I'll answer your blizzard of hypothetical questions. Until then, my motivation for my vote is none of your business.

Err. . . not really questions I was looking for answers to, but merely rhetorical questions. You know, questions asked for a purpose other than to obtain the information the question asks. For example, "Why are you so stupid?" is likely to be a statement regarding one's opinion of the person addressed rather than a genuine request to know.
So my intent was to highlight your rather obvious bias toward your "using religiously inspired morality to influence our laws," which, considering the two heros you cite, has to be Christianity. So I don't have to wait for any change in the majority religion of America. I, and I think everyone else who reads this, already know what the "motivation for [your] vote is."

[JoeyKnothead]

Or were you thinking that America should have laws influenced only by the morality of the Christian religion?

If America ever becomes majority Muslim, or Hindu, or whatever else, I'll answer your blizzard of hypothetical questions. Until then, my motivation for my vote is none of your business.

Err. . . not really questions I was looking for answers to, but merely rhetorical questions. You know, questions asked for a purpose other than to obtain the information the question asks. For example, "Why are you so stupid?" is likely to be a statement regarding one's opinion of the person addressed rather than a genuine request to know.
So my intent was to highlight your rather obvious bias toward your "using religiously inspired morality to influence our laws," which, considering the two heros you cite, has to be Christianity. So I don't have to wait for any change in the majority religion of America. I, and I think everyone else who reads this, already know what the "motivation for [your] vote is."

What scares me is folks will continue to call for what is essentially a theocracy while we send soldiers off to fight theocracies.

[McCulloch]

Are there good arguments apart from religiously inspired morality to make the sex trade against the law?

I'm like William Wilberforce and Martin Luther King, I have no problem using religiously inspired morality to influence our laws.

But neither of them said, "Change the laws because our religion says so." Their message was "Change the laws because they are unjust. By the way, various religions agree with the assessment that these laws are unjust. "

[East of Eden]

But neither of them said, "Change the laws because our religion says so." Their message was "Change the laws because they are unjust. By the way, various religions agree with the assessment that these laws are unjust. "

Uh, I'm pretty sure they would have said Christianity agrees thesse laws are unjust.

[East of Eden]

What scares me is folks will continue to call for what is essentially a theocracy while we send soldiers off to fight theocracies.

No need to be frightened, Joey, none of this going on here:

theocracy [(thee-ok-ruh-see)]


A nation or state in which the clergy exercise political power and in which religious law is dominant over civil law. Iran led by the Ayatollah Khomeini was a theocracy under the Islamic clergy. (See Islam.)

The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

[East of Eden]

Or were you thinking that America should have laws influenced only by the morality of the Christian religion?

If America ever becomes majority Muslim, or Hindu, or whatever else, I'll answer your blizzard of hypothetical questions. Until then, my motivation for my vote is none of your business.

Err. . . not really questions I was looking for answers to, but merely rhetorical questions. You know, questions asked for a purpose other than to obtain the information the question asks. For example, "Why are you so stupid?" is likely to be a statement regarding one's opinion of the person addressed rather than a genuine request to know.
So my intent was to highlight your rather obvious bias toward your "using religiously inspired morality to influence our laws," which, considering the two heros you cite, has to be Christianity. So I don't have to wait for any change in the majority religion of America. I, and I think everyone else who reads this, already know what the "motivation for [your] vote is."

Like you, I don't check my values at the voting booth door.

[micatala]

Are there good arguments apart from religiously inspired morality to make the sex trade against the law?

I'm like William Wilberforce and Martin Luther King, I have no problem using religiously inspired morality to influence our laws.

I would agree, as long as the laws serve a legitimate secular purpose and do not have the religious motivation as their sole rationale. Laws which have only the purpose to promote or enforce a particular religious view are not, in my view, appropriate, especially in a country that enshrines freedom of religion in its constitution.

It also enshrines the free excercise of religion. In no way does my voting for position X because of my religious beliefs violate the constitution, whether I am Christian, Muslim, or have no faith.

I would agree that any of us are free to vote however we want for whatever reason we want.

However, I think we have to acknowledge that this means unjust laws are sometimes enacted by the majority. Certainly slavery, Jim Crow laws, etc., were supported by majorities in their day through ballot and legislative action and they were unjust.

In the U.S. system, the only remedy for this is the courts. If the voters enact an unconstitutional law, those who object take it to the court and attempt to get it overturned.

My personal philosophy in voting is not to vote for laws that I believe are not constitutional. Bans on gay marriage, for example, seem to me to be unconstitutional in that they are establishing a religious teaching as law without there being any reasonable non-religious justification for the law.

With respect to prostitution, the key to me is whether there is a secular purpose in banning prostitution. I think such a case can be made, although it is not a clear cut issue in my view.

[East of Eden]

Bans on gay marriage, for example, seem to me to be unconstitutional in that they are establishing a religious teaching as law without there being any reasonable non-religious justification for the law.

For 5,000 years, every culture and every religion has defined marriage as a contract between men and women.

[micatala]

Bans on gay marriage, for example, seem to me to be unconstitutional in that they are establishing a religious teaching as law without there being any reasonable non-religious justification for the law.

For 5,000 years, every culture and every religion has defined marriage as a contract between men and women.

That may or may not be true, but is not relevant to the constitutional issue.

Two people want to enter into a contract. They are consenting adults. Why would the state respect the contract if it is made between people of the opposite sex but not if they are of the same sex.

I would point out that, even if your statement is true, marriage practices have certainly varied widely from place to place and time to time. In the U.S., it is for many people both a religious rite and a secular contract. How each church handles marriage is up to them. However, no church or religion should have the right to dictate what marriage as a secular contract means for everyone including people of other faiths or no faith.


I don't want to drive the thread off topic by further debate on this issue. I only brought it up as an example related to the general principle of faith or religion informing law and voting behavior. It may be we can continue to use gay marriage as an example to compare with prostitution, but let's keep discussion of the former relevant to the latter.