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
Well since prostitution has been illegal in most places at most times, my view that prostitution should be illegal is pretty mainstream and your view that it should be regulated but not discouraged and treated as a legitimate business is different than the mainstream view.
Do you think you are a Libertarian? What do you think a Libertarian is?
Why don’t you link to some lawyers / law firms advertising Privacy Act lawsuit plaintiff representation?
And the winner of this year’s Man of La Mancha Award goes to . . . Tony C.!
A valiant and well executed display with all the futility that only a Sancho Panza could love!
Your determination is admirable.
@Kay: I’m really not interested. Your approach shows a complete disdain for reality, and I think that is reflective of your thinking.
I can understand representing one’s self in a small claims court where the cost of an attorney may be more than the potential gain or losses. Judges in such court typically allow some leniency because of that dynamic. Beyond that, representing one’s self dismisses the reality that law school is 3-4 years of education, and even then many graduates fail to pass the bar on their first try, indicating an imperfect understanding of the law after earning passing grades in three or four years of study.
I may not have any automatic respect for any person, but I do have respect for reality that you seem to lack. If you think you can represent yourself, you think all those lawyers are dumber than you and your self-education is as good as whatever book-learnin’ they may have done. You have an inflated ego, and an inflated sense of self-importance, and that same underlying inflation is probably behind your belief that your opinion on how somebody else uses their own body to earn money is more important than their opinion on how they use their own body to earn money. You think you are smarter than they are, or better than they are, or whatever.
As far as good governance: I suppose in your opinion the women that want to work as prostitutes aren’t “stake holders.” And I fail to see what definable “stake” you have in the sexual activity of other people. To me, good governance sticks to its knitting; it protects the weak from harm and exploitation, and it provides services at as close to cost as possible for the common good and common defense. Then it stays out of the way, good governance does not impose the morality or beliefs of a majority on a minority, that is the very oppression of the weak (in number) by the strong that government is supposed to prevent.
I can’t think of a city planning board that included only those with professional degrees. Usually good governance practice is to include the message of all stake holders.
Did you see the Sept 09 publication from U.S. Courts,
http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FederalCourts/Publications/StrategicPlan2010.pdf
@Kay: I’m not saying you lied about being a lawyer, I am saying you are constantly pretending to be a lawyer by trying to debate law, quote Section X of Act Y, whatever, just as you just did in this last post.
But you aren’t a lawyer, so why do you do that? I think to give your argument the air of authority, but I don’t care about your airs; you aren’t a lawyer so you could be quoting entirely useless information to me, or information that has a hundred qualifications you don’t know about and aren’t mentioning, or whatever. It is all just noise.
The question is one of philosophy of government. You keep on pretending and imagining you are qualified, maybe you’ll get to spend another stint in jail.
Dear Tony
I never pretended to anyone that I was a lawyer. I never even took the law boards.
I think that PRO SE rights are in the privileges and immunities clause. It should have been less vague, I think that had to do with slavery.
Section 35 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73, 92, (renumbered Title 28 Section 1654)was enacted by the First Congress and signed by President George Washington.
In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.
28 USC § 1654. Appearance personally or by counsel
I think PRO SE rights are fundamental basic rights and are the foundation of democracy.
@Kay: Actually I think it probably IS guaranteed by the Constitution, but unlike you, I don’t pretend to be a lawyer; which is why I am usually inclined to preface my statements as (I believe) or (I think).
You misunderstand the bill of rights; the bill of rights is a list of constraints on the ***government*** not a list of permissions for the ***citizens***. Unlike you the founding fathers conceived the government as existing in service to the people and the government requiring permission from the people to engage in activities. They specifically and expressly rejected the idea of an all powerful government that doled out permissions for people to engage in acts. You think backwards.
For example, the Bill of Rights guarantees the *government* cannot just hold you indefinitely without charges or trial. That is a constraint on *their* power, not yours. The Bill of Rights prohibits the government from laws regarding free speech, that is a constraint on *their* power, not yours.
The fact that prostitution is not *mentioned* in the Constitution means nothing at all. It also does not mention your right to mix stripes with plaid, that doesn’t mean you have no such right, even if others find it offensive.
So your answer is NO, that is NOT the idea. I don’t believe legalized prostitution requires another amendment in the Constitution, the proof of that is Nevada’s legalized prostitution. It does not have to be an enumerated or described right to be a right.
And the larger answer is: Stop pretending to be a lawyer. As I have said numerous times, I think it is a human right and I think your moralizing is wrong-headed and repulsive. I admit here and in several places that I have only a layman’s understanding of the law informed by some professional experiences that involved the courts. In those cases I was smart enough to be guided from start to finish by professionals (experienced attorneys).
Although I believe my understanding to be superior to yours, any discussion of law between us would be like first graders debating gay marriage; completely uninformed and useless to the point of hilarity. What I **can** do is provide reasoned argument, with examples. What I believe is self-consistent, what you believe is NOT, and that is what makes what you believe WRONG.
Did you have the right to represent yourself pro se? Yes. Was it dangerous? Obviously. Would you have preferred the government oppress you and demand you pay a lawyer? I do not prefer that restriction, I think you had a basic right to risk prison by representing yourself. Is that enumerated in the Constitution? No. Nor is your right to skydive, or drive a rocket car 700 mph, or your right to try and balloon across the Pacific in your homemade balloon made of paper mache. Go for it! You have a right to be stupid and ignorant and put your life (and freedom) in danger, and the rest of us, represented by our government, does not have any right or responsibility to either prevent your stupidity or even warn you of the consequences. I think the government’s role is to keep you from harming **us**, not to keep you from harming yourself.
Sorry should be a closed quote
Dear Tony
I was just trying to follow up on your comments. I save the blog as a pdf and searched on “right”
December 2, 2010 at 3:25 pm Tony C….
“I think prostitutes have the human right to prostitute themselves, period…. I believe it is a right to choose to have sex in exchange for money.”
November 26, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Tony C. “…. I think a human has the right to voluntarily do for pay any act s/he has the right to do voluntarily for free. That includes engaging in sexual activity.”
So you don’t believe there is a right to engage in prostitution that is part of any rights guaranteed by the constitution or the Bill of Rights, then, but you think there should be, is that the idea?
Dear Tony
I was just trying to follow up on your comments. I save the blog as a pdf and searched on “right”
December 2, 2010 at 3:25 pm Tony C….
“I think prostitutes have the human right to prostitute themselves, period…. I believe it is a right to choose
to have sex in exchange for money.”
November 26, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Tony C. “…. I think a human has the right to
voluntarily do for pay any act s/he has the right to do voluntarily for free. That includes engaging in sexual activity.
So you don’t believe there is a right to engage in prostitution that is part of any rights guaranteed by the constitution or the Bill of Rights, then, but you think there should be, is that the idea?
@Kay: Are you an idiot or are you just trying to mislead people? There is nothing in the Constitution about prostitution and you know it. Show me where the Constitution grants the government the right to PREVENT me from risking my own safety. You won’t find it and the evidence for that is obvious to the most casually informed observer: Nevada has legalized prostitution, and it has never been declared unconstitutional.
The federal government is not our parental guardian; no matter how much you want to make it so, for whatever delusional reasons you maintain.
Dear Tony and BIL
Do you have an amendment to the constitution or other legal authority that supports your theory that there is a “right” to risk the safety of oneself by the illegal act of prostitution?
Dear Canadian
From the self proclaimed “crack-whore” I talked to, who did not necessarily tell me the whole truth, I got the impression that she was prostituting herself for the crack, and possibly for a meal and place to sleep, and as I said earlier, she never mentioned a pimp. She said something about her one or more of her customers trusting her to hold cash for them.
I wasn’t cross examining her and we were prisoners together (even though I have no criminal record). I don’t have any reason to believe that she was lying to me. She liked me because I gave her part of my food ration.
@Buddha: I forgot to mention cops and firemen; also risking their lives for pay. And other reasons, of course, but they don’t work for free.
Damn.
That was harsh, Tony.
Funny and accurate, but harsh.
@Kay: Those are simply false statements. Paying somebody $100 does not “put them at risk.” It is the sex with a stranger that is putting her at risk, but that is her legal choice whether she gets paid or not. If, as I apparently must continually repeat, the prostitute is engaging in sex of her own free will, it is her RIGHT to endanger herself in return for money.
Professional football players endanger their lives in return for money. Evel Knievel endangered his life in return for money, as have many other movie stuntmen, circus performers, bull fighters, professional boxers and fighters, professional athletes, miners, electrical workers, construction men, divers, soldiers, and more. It is a person’s RIGHT to endanger themselves for money.
This isn’t about that, and it is clear you have a maternalistic attitude about prostitutes in which you refuse to treat them as equal adults capable of making their own decisions. You insist you know better then they POSSIBLY can what is good for them, but of course you won’t back that up with your cash or time. You want to make a pronouncement as queen of morality and if that pronouncement sentences prostitutes (and their children) to lifelong poverty, well fuck ’em all because you are uncomfortable with the idea of paid sex and anybody that disagrees with you deserves a miserable and hopeless life.
People are free to make their own decisions, that is what freedom MEANS, including the freedom to make decisions that bankrupt them, embarrass them, make they sob with grief or endanger them or even kill them. That is freedom, the freedom from paternalistic or maternalistic or theocratic control by the state for the good of the state or the good of the economy or the good of the elite.
Freedom is the right to take a risk, and if the outcome is certain it wasn’t a risk — Freedom is the right to take a risk and succeed wildly or fail miserably. Freedom is a messy, inefficient, hilariously wasteful system that I love and you hate.
Our bodies are designed for sex and wired to like it. Sex is not automatically damaging, and to the extent some forms of sex cause some superficial physical damaging we have the right to engage in it anyway, it is not against the law. Many a teenager has come to school with a hickey on the neck and nobody got prosecuted.
This is not about the sex or the physical damage, because you are not proposing we outlaw that. You are not proposing fines for girlfriends that leave bite marks or back scratches.
This is about your desire to force your morality on others, this is about your mistaken notion that prostitutes must be retarded or insane or addicts or otherwise so mentally incompetent that they cannot make their own decisions and calculate their own outcomes and take their own risks. This is about YOU trying to control the lives of other people when YOU find their acts distasteful.
That is repugnant. You are the slaver, you are the bigot that thinks others are beneath you and like children that must be controlled, you are the enemy of freedom and the proponent of totalitarianism.
Correction, it was a search warrant
Another source of data for data mining is subpoenas
For instance DOJ subpoenaed the email records for the Denver Players brothel and they got customer information
You don’t have a right to risk others; you have a duty to care when you know that you put others at risk through your behavior.
When a John hires a prostitute, he puts her at risk, as well as her children and the community.
The more prostitution the more indirect costs to the community.
Prostitution volume is affected by both supply and demand. Fining the Johns reduces the demand.
Re data mining thru SPSS
Prostitute files:
Booking system data will also include
broken teeth
bruises
under weight which may indicate malnutrition or drug abuse
unmet dental needs — untreated cavities showing poverty
broken bones not set
untreated vision — no glasses showing poverty and lack of control over circumstances.
Probable cause statement fair game for Data Mining may include
names of customer
price of service
type of business
self employment / no pimp
small business w pimp
larger business w organized crime
location of service
street or park
hotel
outcall
brothels
larger business multiple location
Then you can data mine on Johns and on businesses
public records
liquor licenses
taxi licenses
hotel
Probably there are multiple paradigms in prostitution
migrant workers
gang
older Johns
It is quite possible that the majority of Johns are older guys
Do sales of sexual performance drugs fuel prostitution?
Every time a prostitute sells sex she is at risk.
@Kay: Correlation doesn’t prove causation, and specifically it doesn’t mean mutual causation. If prostitution is a symptom of addiction, reducing addiction might reduce prostitution but reducing prostitution wouldn’t reduce addiction, and in fact might increase other crimes (like theft).
As for fining the Johns, why? The point of that is just to reduce prostitution, by your own admission. If I believe it is a person’s right to sell their body for sex, fining the buyers is oppressing their right.
It is your right to make a living selling your art. If I fine (or tax) art buyers a thousand dollars every time they buy something, your right to sell it is meaningless, you can’t make a living that way.
Fining John’s is just your way of expressing your disapproval of the profession, and I do not believe that your disapproval, or even the disapproval of a super majority of the people, is enough cause to suppress somebody’s right to do something. That is the equivalent of putting a person’s rights up for a vote, and we don’t do that with our other rights.
@Canadian: When WM beats her up he has committed assault, and probably a felony. He has coerced her into prostitution, he has made her a slave, and that should carry a death penalty, or 30 years in prison, or something similar.
The abuse at home (I have known a woman raped by her father, another raped by her brother 9 years older than her) should be prosecuted and imprisoned or put to death.
You are talking about one very serious broken law after another and a complete lack of law enforcement that produces a cycle of abuse that wastes a life. That is a reason for less law, higher taxes to fund more comprehensive law enforcement and better oversight of it to ensure outcomes like the ones you describe are as rare as we can afford to make them within our limited budget.
Your story is not an excuse for MORE laws that will go unenforced. We use law too much as a bogeyman to try and scare people into obeisance, and that may work for some people but the real criminals see right through it. The real criminals respond well to laws that are enforced and use the laws that are NOT enforced against us, because *those* laws mean they can do something that we will not. And usually that something gives them an advantage over us, because trying to prohibit that advantage is *why* the law was passed in the first place!
But a law without teeth is worse than nothing at all. So is a law selectively enforced at the choice of the cop or D.A.
The primary purpose of law enforcement is to use force of all of us to prevent or counter force being used to coerce any of us. This is a failure of law enforcement.
The only legal prostitution I advocate for is voluntarily done without coercion and of her own free will. If your heroine’s WM *talks* her into it (without threats or lies or fraud) that is one thing. It is not my place to prevent seduction.
If it takes a beating to break her will, if she can’t say no out of fear of physical harm, we are talking about completely different things.
@Buddha: Yes, absolutely, I knew about the physical addiction aspect as well, and didn’t consider it.
I will modify it to “like” mental illness, in the sense that it can cause people to act in ways irrational enough to harm themselves and others. I imagine the law defines that threshold somehow. Like if somebody is wandering about in the woods in sub-zero weather wearing a swimsuit and screaming gibberish, we take him into custody and try to sort something out.