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
The prostitution -reform laws in Europe include a mandatory Fine The Johns program. I read somewhere that in Sweden alone more than 600 Johns have been fined.
When I posted as “reader” you had no problem with me. When I post under my own name I am attacked. I am completely innocent of wrong doing. Letting anonymous bloggers attack me gives me at least a forum to protest my wrongful incarceration without a criminal charge or arraignment or statutory basis.
I hope that we can also agree that there is not enough data about prostitution.
@Swarthmore, Blouise:
Kay is not advocating for the protection of prostitutes, she is advocating for the abolition of prostitution altogether. I am interested in how you two conclude that fining Johns is ‘protecting’ a woman that is a prostitute of her own free will.
To use an analogy I believe you two can comprehend: It is legal to draw cartoon caricatures of people for pay. Some people actually do it to earn a living, I watched a talented kid in New Orleans doing it for $20 a picture. Now, suppose I leave that legal but start fining people $100 for every cartoon caricature they buy. I just put that kid out of business because nobody is going to pay $120 for a cartoon caricature, or risk arrest to get one. I would consider fining his customers oppression; it would cost him his business.
Kay is not advocating for protection, she is advocating for oppression.
Tony C,
I whole-heartedly agree with SwM on the point “Advocating for the protection of the prostitute does not equate to be an oppressor.”
However, I do understand your frustration with the discourse where others are concerned.
Tony: Don’t agree with your assessment of Kay’s position on the legalization of prostitution. Her legal issues are another matter. I don’t know anything about them. She has presented a coherent case as to why the decriminalization of prostitution as has been done in Sweden might be preferable to legalization. Advocating for the protection of the prostitute does not equate to be an oppressor.
Speakers are protected by the First Amendment.
I guess you are saying that people who are against legalization of prostitution should be attacked, is that right?
That is reserved for those who carry messages for other people, you fool, because the carrier is not responsible for the content. You are entirely responsible for your content, so you are not the ‘messenger’ you are the SPEAKER, dumbass. And when a speaker is advocating intolerance and oppression rooted in simple-minded ignorance, YES, attack the speaker.
Attack the messenger
@Kay: It is pointless talking to you, you are incapable of comprehending basic logic and everything you say is illogical, ignorant, or a laughable misinterpretation of something that means the exact opposite of what you claim. I think you are either hopelessly dense or a liar doing that on purpose.
Tony C
I didn’t realize you aren’t a lawyer. What is your profession?
You say “You Disobeyed Order Your Broke Law” but that is not true in my case.
You’re suggesting above that given legalization, police would prosecute a John for rape???? How does that follow?
In the 40 years or so in which prostitution was legal in Nevada was anyone ever prosecuted for rape of a prostitute?
What about “pandering”, did Nevada prosecute anyone for “pandering”?
LK,
Does anymore need be said about the half-witted flake?
@Kay: (3) DISOBEDIENCE or resistance to its lawful writ, process, ORDER, rule, decree, or COMMAND.
YOU. DISOBEYED. ORDER.
YOU. BROKE. LAW.
Get it?
You disobeyed an order by a judge.
That means you broke this very law.
So you went to prison.
I think you were lucky to get out.
Except you didn’t get out, you have given yourself a life sentence of whining about how unfair it seems. It seems perfectly fair to me.
@Kay: No, I got no law, I got common sense which you lack. I don’t need to be bonked over the head with a brick to understand something. You do.
You don’t take FindLaw as an authority? I just saw it myself, and if you think they are going to make something up about a topic as common as contempt, you are hopelessly lost.
You disobeyed a direct order by a judge and got burned for it. You obviously do not understand the law, and I am no lawyer but even I know you aren’t coming back from that. No judge will back you, no jury would acquit you.
Give up. Find another project. Your cause is lost. Nobody will ever represent you for free. It’s toast. Stop wasting your time and energy, you are throwing good money after bad. You lost. Get over it. It was a dumb idea and it failed.
Don’t hire an attorney, and stop trying to get one for free, you are just wasting people’s time, including your own.
@Canadian: “A sex worker, more times than not, does not have these choices available to him/her.”
If that is the case the sex worker is being held against their will; that is kidnapping; that is a crime that should be prosecuted.
In many jobs it may seem there is very LITTLE choice of action because the consequences are high, like losing a good job. But as long as the employee can technically walk out or say no, there is choice of action. There just isn’t any choice of consequences. (I’m talking about legal consequences, like losing a job or losing a client or facing a lawsuit.)
The only thing I am ever advocating for here is legalized, willing prostitution by choice. That includes the power of choice after becoming a prostitute. That includes full access to the law just like any other person gets without regard to the work they do, because then the prostitutes would have legal, legitimate jobs just like any other person does. They see clients just like doctors, dentists, manicurists or barbers.
If you believe in strong law enforcement, particularly in regard to physical crimes like assault, kidnapping and rape, then the way to help prostitutes is to legalize their profession so they will have full access to the law.
I don’t say that because I need it; I never have and never expect to need them. I say that because they need it.
Child sex trafficking is the new slave trade.
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
thomas jefferson didn’t need to frequent prostitutes.
he had slaves
It wasn’t self inflicted
Again. And for the last damn time too, kay.
Hire.
A.
Lawyer.
Your endless prattling about your self-inflicted injury is tiresome.
A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its
authority, and none other, as –
(1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near
thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;
(2) Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official
transactions;
(3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process,
order, rule, decree, or command.
18 U.S.C. § 401 : US Code – Section 401: Power of court
So, there are statutes for murder too, what are you saying I did?
I wasn’t an officer so # 2 didn’t count.
No law was cited so if # 3 counted it wasn’t stated.
No one said that I acted in a disruptive fashion. I was very polite.
The assertion keeps being wrongly made that courts have no power to hold petitioners and professionals in contempt of court. 18 U.S.C. § 401 seems to think otherwise.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/21/401.
Now I’m going to give you the only legal advice I can and will give you, kay: hire a lawyer.
Next time you might dig yourself a hole you can’t get out of.
Many times what seemed to be sure things weren’t so sure after all. Lot’s can happen in the next six months.
Who are the decision makers?
Was there a referendum?