News Sections
Ontario court strikes down anti-prostitution laws
CTV News Video
|
Watch: See all Videos in the Player
CTV.ca News Staff
Date: Tue. Sep. 28 2010 9:30 PM ET
An Ontario court has struck down several key provisions in Canada's anti-prostitution laws, saying they are dangerous to sex-trade workers.
A ruling by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice said the laws against keeping a common bawdy house, communicating for the purposes of prostitution and living on the avails of the trade "are not in accord with the principles of fundamental justice."
"These laws, individually and together, force prostitutes to choose between their liberty interest and their right to security of the person as protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms," Justice Susan Himel wrote her in 131-page decision, which struck down those provisions.
"I find that the danger faced by prostitutes greatly outweighs any harm which may be faced by the public."
Dominatrix Terri-Jean Bedford and two other sex-trade workers went to Ontario's Superior Court of Justice to ask the court to rule on the Criminal Code laws relating to prostitution.
In an afternoon press conference Bedford said Tuesday was like emancipation day for sex-trade workers.
"It's important that women have safety and security in this business," Bedford said later Tuesday on CTV's Power Play. "It is legal, and like with any other legal business in Canada there are health and safety laws that go along with it."
Prostitution is not illegal in Canada, but nearly everything related to it is.
The struck-down provisions deal with adult prostitution. Prostitution laws dealing with those under the age of 18 remain unaffected.
Lawyer Alan Young, who represented the women, said the ruling "means the sex trade is changing in Canada."
"Whether Canadians like prostitution and think it's morally valuable or a moral vice really is not important," Young told Power Play. "This was a safety issue to ensure that people who are legally allowed to sell sex can do it in an environment that doesn't put them in harm's way."
Young said the case was based on the fact that the provisions the court struck down compromised the safety of sex workers. For instance, the prohibition on communicating for the purpose of prostitution prevented sex workers from screening their clients, while the provision against operating a bawdy house prevented them from moving their business off the streets, where it is more dangerous.
In her ruling, Himel said Parliament had to "fashion corrective action" to put new laws in place.
"It is my view that in the meantime these unconstitutional provisions should be of no force and effect, particularly given the seriousness of the charter violations," Himel wrote.
"However, I also recognize that a consequence of this decision may be that unlicensed brothels may be operated, and in a way that may not be in the public interest."
The Christian Legal Fellowship, which was granted intervenor status, argued that prostitution "offends the conscience of ordinary Canadians."
The government argued removing the prohibitions without replacing them with new laws would "pose a danger to the public."
The decision is subjected to a 30-day stay and the federal government can seek an extension of that period.
The federal government has previously argued that prostitution is inherently dangerous, no matter where it is carried out.
It has also argued that striking down the laws would make Canada a sex tourism destination.
Rona Ambrose, the minister of state for the status of women, told reporters Tuesday the government is "concerned with the decision and we are seriously considering appealing it at this time."
Deputy NDP Leader Libby Davies said Tuesday's ruling "breaks down the myth that these laws were actually protecting sex workers and local communities, because not only were they not protecting sex workers, they were actually harmful."
Davies said she has often heard from her constituents in Vancouver's downtown eastside who say the provisions prevented them from reporting violence or exploitation.
"We need to distinguish between what is consenting between two adults and what is exploitative, coercive and violent and focus the law-enforcement on those aspects," Davies said.
With files from The Canadian Press
User Tools
Related Stories
Most Popular
Most Viewed News Stories
Most Talked about Stories
While Branson's comments (and activities) are arrogant in a million different ways, Clark's response was admirable. She kept her sense of humour with her joke about Branson's brand-name and his bad pick-up line, showing why humour is often the best response to arrogance.
Email
Comments are now closed for this story
Jeff
said
Gord
said
B.C. resident
said
kestral
said
Richard in New Brunswick
said
KT
said
Damon
said
Scott ON
said
suzanne - Waterloo Ontario
said
Tim
said
Jagu
said
MJ
said
John
said
Frank
said
Brad
said
Jade
said
vick
said
Tom
said
Rob in Waterloo
said
Lady in Van
said
EmAB
said
I wouldn't want my daughter working in a slaughterhouse either but that doesn't mean it should be illegal.
Not a John
said
Rob Canadian
said
TLC
said
As for "no religion", well, don't open that can of worms! Are you mental? Where do you think the first laws began, look up Exodus 20. Then ask yourself, okay, no "religion" ... cool... whose conscience will you use as a guide, because obviously we all see things different, what a mess. Stupid comment.
Lastly, let's say Mr. and Mrs. Smith are happily married, he loses his job, can't find one for months. Neither can she. "Hey, honey, the only way I see for us to make rent this month is if you go to the new brothol." The wife, reluctantly agrees because it seems like the only legal option she's got...do we really want to encourage this life style? It's not gonna be any safer, don't fool yourselves.
I could go on but...
Richard D
said
Jason
said
Stan the Man
said
Rob P
said
Simply put, and I quote from the article above "Prostitution is not illegal in Canada, but nearly everything related to it is. "
Therefore the issue here is not that prostitution is Now Legal, instead the issue here is that all the laws surrounding prostitution have been struck down. For example, "living off the avails of a sex worker" is one of these stupid laws that was just struck down by this very logical and open minded Judge. This is such a stupid law because it states that a sex worker cannot use her income to provide for her family since that family would be "living off the avails" of this sex worker.
Do you see now why these stupid laws have been struck down. It is about time! Justice finally has shown its beautiful face.
Sorry
said
zm
said
Ken P.
said
Scott ON
said
Scott ON
said
Ed
said
John in Nepean
said
Scott ON
said
Jb
said
syko
said
Suzanne
said
Josh in High Prairie
said
Bubba says legalize it. Protect the victims.
said
There is really no direct victim here, and no reason for the legal system to be involved.
I would never use these services, even if they were legalized, but if some people wish to use it, they should not be subject to abuse by the pimps, or police.
Frank
said
Rob
said
Michael (Ottawa)
said
Tim
said
BigDS
said
Joel Cross
said
Gilbert in Ottawa
said
Steve
said
MT
said
melted time
said
Cam
said
daryn
said
Captain Sarcasm
said
Sam C
said
shawbrooke
said
Tricia
said
James
said
Linda
said
Candace
said
That means your child could come to you and say they want a career in the sex trade.
Does that change your feeling about it at all?
As to 'needs' being met...the need to control a person; by simply paying money, the johns can get whatever they want.
95% of prostitutes want out. The 5% who made this a 'choice' came from families and backgrounds where they were repeatedly told they were no good and of no value.
Some choice.
W in the GTA
said
Daniel
said
Julian
said
Women use these services too ladies.
So you can drop the "men this" and "men that" redirect.
I've never used these types of services, but I see no reason why they should be illegal.
Who are you people to dictate what two consenting adults can or cannot do with each other behind closed doors?
And for those talking about the abuse of women, not only are many of your comments discriminatory against men, but you completely miss the fact that a regulated system would be far safer for all adults involved, and help to reduce levels of violence and child prostitution as well.
Just because it makes you uncomfortable, doesn't mean it should be illegal.
Terry
said
Amberin Sask....
said
Tony
said
KJ in Kingston Ontario
said
Jagu
said
Wayne
said
steve in wildrose country
said
laureen
said
Rick in NB, Ste marie
said
Carl
said
Albertaboy111
said
Anne
said
russ
said
Adam
said
Bruce from Alberta
said
scott
said
Kevin in Vancouver
said
Jenni
said
macpriest
said
Sunny West Coast Again
said
Toronto
said
Cobra
said
RealityCzech
said
viral venus
said
DON
said
CraigW
said
coolmanken
said
Ron from Georgetown
said
BC boy
said
Nolan Moore
said
MiggsVer2.0
said
spaz
said
10-78
said
Guy
said
Roger in Courtice
said
You think???
JB in Ontario
said
Someone
said
Eric
said