Author Topic: Canadian Supreme Court says prostitution ban violates rights of prostitutes  (Read 255 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 69,400
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them

I would assume laws against murder violate the rights of murderers, too.
  In fact, laws against anything violate the "rights" of someone so why have laws to begin with?

Canadian Supreme Court Says Prostitution Ban Violates Rights of Prostitutes

Posted By Daniel Greenfield On December 22, 2013 @ 10:12 am In The Point | 5 Comments

The strange thing about this decision is how its talk of values and its pretense that it isn’t taking a position on prostitution resembles the gay marriage rulings in the United States. Or maybe it isn’t surprising at all.

The Canadian Supreme Court struck down laws against deriving income from prostitution, aka a ban on pimps, because, and I quote, “It also criminalizes those who “increase the safety and security of prostitutes,” such as legitimate drivers, managers and bodyguards.”

Furthermore it found that a ban on solicitation in public was also illegal.

In addition, the law on prohibiting soliciting was designed “not to eliminate street prostitution for its own sake, but to take prostitution off the streets and out of public view in order to prevent the nuisances that street prostitution can cause. The provision’s negative impact on the safety and lives of street prostitutes, who are prevented by the communicating prohibition from screening potential clients for intoxication and propensity to violence, is a grossly disproportionate response to the possibility of nuisance caused by street prostitution.”

“These restrictions on prostitution put the safety and lives of prostitutes at risk and are therefore unconstitutional,” Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote.

The prostitution decision follows much the same underlying logic as gay marriage. You can fully ban something… but you can’t partially ban something.

Civil unions legally made gay marriage inevitable. As long as prostitution is allowed, attempting to artificially restrict it by context, will be struck down by leftist justices.

Lawyers for the federal and Ontario governments argued that if prostitutes want to avoid the inherent risks of prostitution, they could simply choose not to engage in it.

But that would just be crazy. We all know that oppressed classes don’t have choices. Gay men don’t choose to be gay. Prostitutes don’t choose to be prostitutes. Transsexuals don’t choose to be transsexuals.

“Yes, great day for Canada, Canadian women from coast to coast,” declared Terri Jean Bedford, bedecked in dominatrix attire.

Kim Pate, executive director of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, called it a “sad day.”

“We have now confirmed that it’s okay to buy and sell women and girls in this country,” she said. “I think generations to come, our daughters, their granddaughters and on will look back and say, ‘what were they thinking?’”

This is what happens when the left takes over.


Article printed from FrontPage Magazine:

URL to article:
Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties, for niceties of expression, for critical propriety, for elaborate shades of meaning, or for the exercise of philosophical acuteness or judicial research. They are instruments of a practical nature, founded on the common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings.

Joseph Story

Online Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 46,840
  • #ToldYouSo
Oy vey!  Under this rationale, most of the criminal code must be thrown out because it violates the rights of those to whom it's addressed.

Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo