As if we needed more proof that Canadian politics is a snoozefest, this!
We are getting set to legalize brothels here
It is almost like prostitution has been around as long as trade was a concept and male was dominant over female. Or is that right? Our cousins in one of the chimp species have been observed using sex as a soother and an invitation to exchange (for food). Penguins too.
I cannot see one society on earth that deals with this 'scourge' that will not be exterminated. Is it France, where it is legal but ... or Belgium and the Netherlands where it is legal but ...
I am happy Canada stumbles sleepily beyond the legal, but
... zone, if only to offer one more small margin of protection to those who were victims of the pig farmer and police indifference.
We can look to our cousins in Nevada, Europe and especially New Zealand and Australia, which have legal brothels in all but name, and we should consider the many cases against 'swinging' establishments in Quebec, and the legal efforts by organized sex workers to form a protective 'guild' or co-op (a brothel in all but name, even if to shelter vulnerable street prostitutes during their "dates"). How can you not communicate for the purposes of prostitution? What are the finer points of 'Bawdy house' 'living off the avails' 'communicating for the purpose' ... ?
I think these adjoining issues will be forced in the courts again and again until firm decisions come down. Our laws date to 892 BC in some instances, it seems.
I have no other opinion but a heavy sigh. But if this enduring activity cannot be expunged, the Canadian solution seems to be drifting towards 'safe' as the margin (as with Safe Injection). So, safe bawdy houses, maybe regulated up the ass by regional health on federal authority and on a steady if not friendly relationship with police.
Questions remain (I am sure Objectivists have some of the most imaginative answers):
If bawdy houses become legal, then who and what is still criminal communication, criminal "communicating for the purposes of prostitution," if not on the the street what about sex ads? Is the four pages of slick ads for Escorts and Ladies and You Know What Massage and More urban weeklies (like the Georgia Straight) soliciting, or is it just sitting in front of a congressional dais? How does a legal bawdy house pay for its business licences, for example, or arrange television advertising?
And - what do the actual working girls and guys want in their various levels of struggle? Shall we invite the casino and hospitality industries to ally with provincial tourism departments and the Solicitor General to hammer out a plan for summer?
Fly north, get stoned, get gay married to your buddy, poke up safely with heroin, visit a bawdy house, get a tattoo, get gay divorced, get an abortion, go shopping, get stoned, and then go back to security of the homeland.
This cartoon is from Torontoist
, depicting Justice getting a spanking from the Lady (a former successful dominatrix) who rode victorious over the Crown, Terri-Jean Bedford.
-- and for my cousin but for the Homeland Adam, a bit from and a link to the Wikipedia article
Canada v Bedford that details the boring new hole in Canada's criminal code,
On March 26, 2012 the Court of Appeal struck down the bawdy house provisions as unconstitutional and amended the Criminal Code provisions to clarify that the prohibition on living on the avails of prostitution (pimping) applies only to those who do so “in circumstances of exploitation.”  However, the Crown’s appeal of the communicating for the purposes of prostitution was successful, as the Court of Appeal ruled this law does not violate the prostitutes’ Section 7 rights and is a reasonable limit on the right to expression. This means street prostitution, where prostitutes solicit business in public, still remains effectively illegal.
The Court of Appeal stayed the effect of their ruling on the law against operating a common bawdy-house for 12 months to give Parliament an opportunity to amend the law in a manner that does not infringe the Charter.
Edited by william.scherk, 04 April 2012 - 09:13 PM.