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]

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

It is very relevant to your implied contention that it is only Christian opposition to gay marriage that stops it.

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'm not going to get into a discussion of gay marriage here.

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.

There is no single church commanding gay marriage be stopped, in our democracy it is millions of individuals expressing their opinion in the voting booth. That some of them use their religious beliefs, or lack of same, in voting is in no way unconstitutional. I would go further and say to take issue with one of the two groups I mentioned in my previous sentance (the majority religious one) is discriminitory and a violation of the First Amendment.

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.

Agreed.

[micatala]

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.

There is no single church commanding gay marriage be stopped, in our democracy it is millions of individuals expressing their opinion in the voting booth. That some of them use their religious beliefs, or lack of same, in voting is in no way unconstitutional.

I basically agree with this.

I would go further and say to take issue with one of the two groups I mentioned in my previous sentance (the majority religious one) is discriminitory and a violation of the First Amendment.

I would absolutely and entirely and completely disagree with this.

How on earth is my taking issue with how some people exercise their voting rights a violation of the first amendment?

The first amendment applies to actions by the government. The government is not allowed to abridge people's freedom of speech, religion, etc.

Now, if I had the power to adversely affect people's freedom, or acted in a coercive or violent manner then you might have a case. IF I acted illegally in attempting to change their behavior or their vote, the government should step in to prevent me from doing so to punish me after the fact.

However, by simply exercising my free speech rights to say that some people, whatever groups they belong to or not, are voting for or supporting laws I think are unconstitutional, I am not in any way violating their rights.

This is just the flip side of the right you claim for yourself. Namely, to vote however your conscience as informed by your religious views leads you to.

Many people in this country seem to have a bizarre idea of what freedom of speech means. People claimed Miss California had her rights violated because a lot of people objected to her statements on gay marriage. Some of these people were outrageous and wrong in their statements. Still, her free speech rights were not violated in any way. She may have been placed lower in the pageant because of her remark, but as long as the pageant followed their own rules, she has nothing to complain about. It's their pageant.

Free speech does not mean no one is allowed to criticize your speech, or even say nasty things about you. Free speech does not mean you will never suffer any consequences for speaking out. Free speech, as a right, simply means the government will not infringe on your rights.


Civility, as a value that people voluntarily adhere to is different than free speech. I would certainly say it is better for public discussion to occur in an honest and civil manner. This did not happen with much of the speech surrounding Miss CA and the aftermath. She behaved civilly and at least some of her critics certainly did not.

Still, not a free speech violation. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Neither the opinion I have expressed nor the position I have supported a violation of anyone's First Amendment rights.

[East of Eden]

I would absolutely and entirely and completely disagree with this.

How on earth is my taking issue with how some people exercise their voting rights a violation of the first amendment?

The first amendment applies to actions by the government. The government is not allowed to abridge people's freedom of speech, religion, etc.

Now, if I had the power to adversely affect people's freedom, or acted in a coercive or violent manner then you might have a case. IF I acted illegally in attempting to change their behavior or their vote, the government should step in to prevent me from doing so to punish me after the fact.

However, by simply exercising my free speech rights to say that some people, whatever groups they belong to or not, are voting for or supporting laws I think are unconstitutional, I am not in any way violating their rights.

This is just the flip side of the right you claim for yourself. Namely, to vote however your conscience as informed by your religious views leads you to.

OK, as long as you're not saying it is somehow unconsitutional (or 'theocratic', as some put it) to vote your religious views, I agree.

Many people in this country seem to have a bizarre idea of what freedom of speech means. People claimed Miss California had her rights violated because a lot of people objected to her statements on gay marriage. Some of these people were outrageous and wrong in their statements. Still, her free speech rights were not violated in any way. She may have been placed lower in the pageant because of her remark, but as long as the pageant followed their own rules, she has nothing to complain about. It's their pageant.

Free speech does not mean no one is allowed to criticize your speech, or even say nasty things about you. Free speech does not mean you will never suffer any consequences for speaking out. Free speech, as a right, simply means the government will not infringe on your rights.


Civility, as a value that people voluntarily adhere to is different than free speech. I would certainly say it is better for public discussion to occur in an honest and civil manner. This did not happen with much of the speech surrounding Miss CA and the aftermath. She behaved civilly and at least some of her critics certainly did not.

Still, not a free speech violation. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Perhaps, but if who agreed with gay marriage and didn't mention God she would still be Miss CA. Their loss.