To the delight of civil libertarians and libertarians alike, the Canadian courts have been leading the world in dealing with conflicts between privacy principles and morality legislation. I am serving as an expert in the review of Canadian polygamy laws in British Columbia. In the meantime, the Ontario Superior Court may allow three prostitution laws to die this Saturday.
In September, the Court struck down the laws. The federal government is charging that this is nothing short of a “social experiment unprecedented in this country.” However, it is also a frank acknowledgment that consenting adults came engage in sex for money as a consensual choice. Currently, an individual can have sex with any number of partners but can be arrested if they accept anything of value in exchange for sex. They can receive gifts as part of a “relationship” no matter how fleeting but not as payment.
The Court previously noted that criminal laws force prostitutes in the shadows where they are easy prey for abuse and even homicides. Once legal, protections and regulations can apply to the world’s oldest profession. With the demise of the laws, street walking will be legal.
Source: Star
Jonathan Turley
Tony C-
I once tried to join CUYOSA….oh no… I guess it was WEBELOS.
Didn’t CUYOSA used to be called ACORN? I know it had something to do with that Alinsky guy- or was it Bill Ayers? You know, that guy who married Bernadette Peters? I always like to get my facts straight. Well Tony C, thanks for the info.
Don’t let that $0.00 budget, put you off from applying, however. I run a rogue section of CUYOSA which is currently Iran Contra-ing tons of black market funds — our budget just has to look like it’s $0.
@HenMan:
>>> who do I contact about getting my paycheck
CUYOSA, of course. Who else? The only requirements to complete payment are:
a) You must provide a link to your comment in favor of legalization,
b) You must also provide a link to a comment asking Buddha is Laughing to act as your attorney free of charge;
Payment can be accelerated by providing a list of laws that may or may not apply to your case accompanied by a detailed misinterpretation of the meaning of those laws.
Please note that all members of CUYOSA are fictitious and anonymous. Payments are determined proportionate to balance of the CUYOSA budget for such payments in the year the comment was made, for fiscal 2010 the board has carefully determined that budget shall be $0.00.
Good luck and happy commenting!
I realize that the road ahead is a long and tortuous one and that criminals and well-intentioned folk will be, strangely, aligned against de-criminalization/legalization but we must persevere. If the law serves to protect the weak and if it can be used as an instrument for social change, prostitutes could certainly use the help.
Kay-
When I come on this blog to lobby in favor of legalizing prostitution, who do I contact about getting my paycheck?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-03-16-sweden-prostitution_N.htm
Marianne Eriksson said she was ridiculed by fellow lawmakers when she first proposed the change in the European Parliament in 1997.
estimates the number of prostitutes in Sweden dropped 40% from 2,500 in 1998 to 1,500 in 2003.
A handful of Swedish judges have been caught up in prostitution scandals, including a Supreme Court justice who was fined in 2005 after admitting to paying for sex with a young man.
Pimps and brothel keepers are also prosecuted, but not prostitutes, because they are viewed as victims, treated as commodities in the sex trade.
Hi Swarthmore Mom,
Thank-you for the Hebert and Kristof pieces. I share their outrage at the horrors of prostitution; I know it is a really nasty and exploitative “business” and I would only favor decriminalization/legalization if I thought it would improve the plight of prostitutes.
Kristof writes “There are no silver bullets, but the critical step is for the police and prosecutors to focus more on customers (to reduce demand) and, above all, on pimps.”
While I would agree that would be great if you could do it; I don’t ever see that happening. When a man like Eliot Spitzor is willing to be a consumer (sans condom) of a prostitutes services I feel you have to give up the fight that you can ever change the problem on the demand side.
The DC madam was sentenced to jail and then (allegedly) committed suicide; while one of her famous “diaper wearing” customers David Vitter was just re-elected Senator.
There really is no “justice” for prostitutes in our society; and the “johns” in our midst will probably never suffer the same terrible and tragic consequences they daily endure.
IMHO the “system” is riddled with corruption when it comes to (drugs and) prostitution. The only famous pimps I’ve heard of are female and convicted. While we know most pimps/johns are male and never prosecuted.
My hope in decriminalizing/legalizing both drugs and prostitution is that maybe it will improve society and the plight of the prostitute.
I know that this is a giant problem; and love this blog because it makes me aware of things i may never have given much thought about.
I would have suggested that the first critical step for improvement/mitigation with regard to both drug use and prostitution would be Universal Health Care, as I see this as the most effective and necessary first step in helping individuals and society stay healthy. So what has most given me pause in this thread is that legalization has “failed” in countries where health care is available to all.
So the only other suggestion I can think of right now, that might help ameliorate the situation in addition to Health Care for all (i am not giving up on that) is to more fully integrate our justice system. I would like to see not just ethnic diversity but true gender equality; really I’d like to see one female officer for every male. Oh well i can dream!
what is CUYOSA?
According to Wikipedia Prostitution in Sweden
The latest statute, amended through a government bill in 2005,[2] uses the following wordings: “A person who, otherwise than as previously provided in this Chapter [on Sexual Crimes], obtains a casual sexual relation in return for payment, shall be sentenced for purchase of sexual service to a fine or imprisonment for at most six months. The provision of the first paragraph also apply if the payment was promised or given by another person.”
In 2009, similar laws were adopted by Norway[8] and Iceland.[9] Several European countries have discussed or are currently discussing adopting a similar legal system.[
Smom,
I’m not against de-criminalization. I just think legalization offers more tools to those in against their will to get out.
Buddha: Human trafficking and prostitution are interwoven to such an extent that the only thing that make sense now is decriminalizing prostitution not legalizing it.
Elaine/Blouise,
I submit that human trafficking cannot be addressed without multi-national effort.
In the international scope of the problem – a scope that dictates the scope of the solution – how can we implement solutions when in some countries, like Saudi Arabia, slavery of all sorts is encouraged by the culture, the failure to recognize human or civil rights and the inactivity on or complicity of the local government?
kay,
Buddha Is Laughing 1, November 28, 2010 at 12:38 pm
I’m done feeding your psychosis, kay.
Bother somebody else.
SwM,
I read that article first thing this morning and once again the emphasis comes back to the pimps and the customers.
I’m going to question the following only to the point that she admits understanding that she was going to be “smuggled” so she had to have known she was dealing with criminals to begin with. Further she was willing to use her relative’s possessions as collateral in furthering her own advancement once again in a criminal endeavor … ie … smuggling.
“to be smuggled to New York and take up a job using her accounting skills and paying $5,000 a month. Yumi’s relatives had to sign documents pledging their homes as collateral if she did not pay back the $50,000 smugglers’ fee from her earnings.”
As an educated accountant her willingness to go “off the books” to engage in smuggling indicates a certain failure of ethics in her chosen field. Was she going to remain in America? Was she planning to hide for the rest of her life as an illegal immigrant? Was she going to manage to obtain false papers and fool her way into citizenship? Was she going to find someone to marry and gain citizenship through that means? Was she simply going to pay off the smugglers and then remain for an additional few years to build up a “nest-egg” and then go home? What were her plans and what was she planning to do?
I am not suggesting that she deserved to find herself in the god-awful reality that resulted from her endeavor to engage in smuggling but her judgement and that of her relatives is in question from the get-go.
Given her situation, no criminal charges for prostitution might have been the only thing working in her favor.
BIL
It doesn’t go to a particular comment when you click on the link
http://jonathanturley.org/2010/11/23/prostitution-may-become-legal-this-saturday-in-ontario/#comment-176963
Blouise,
Thanks for that — it must have been very nice. And regarding your last statement:
“Sometimes you just gotta go with trust.”
Agreed.
Well, we’re having a little spontaneous post-Thanksgiving party, so can’t linger. Good things cookin’ and an aroma that’s indescribable.
Cheers!
(A very sweet story, all of it — but especially about the little boy…)
Sorry it was Tony C who used we when referring to CUYOSA
Buddha Is Laughing 1, November 27, 2010 at 10:11 pm Canadian Eh!, I would suggest that you check your e-mail if you haven’t.
So is Canadian Eh! involved with CUYOSA? What is CUYOSA and what is your involvement with CUYOSA? Why do you refer to We when referring to CUYOSA?
You started it going after me and are continuing it here calling me crazy while you are claiming to be a lawyer. AND you claim to know that I was legally imprisoned.
So what evidence admissible under FRE supported my imprisonment?
I’ve never e-mailed Tony a damn thing. Nor has he me. I have no idea what his e-mail address is.
There you go . . . making shit up again and not reading again.
When you fabricate reality, it’s commonly called delusion, kay.
And for the record? Unless your evidence is non-conforming, the FRE have nothing to do with contempt of court. You’d know this if you were competent to discuss law let alone “give legal advice”.
I’m at the end of my patience with your lunacy and I’m going to tell you this one last time for your own good: You don’t know what you are talking about and you need to hire an attorney. No one here is going to do the job for you, least of all me.
Now, seriously, piss off.
If I wanted to talk to a crazy woman 24/7, I’d still be married.
Tony C
What is CUYOSA and why do you say “we” when referring to CUYOSA?
One of the comments above said something about emails between you and BIL, is BIL also involved with CUYOSA?