Puck Nutty
Prince
Prostitution has been legal in Canada for some time, but some of the actions associated with the industry were not. Working in a "common bawdy house" was illegal, as was "profiting from the avails of prostitution" (so no security guards or bodyguards).
However, due to a ruling passed down from the Supreme Court of Ontario, the above is now perfectly legal. This allows women to work out of their homes and to hire bodyguards for protection.
However, it should be noted that the feds have a year to draft new legislation in response to this ruling. Additionally, they can appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada if they want (but I don't think the odds are in their favour since their first appeal has been defeated).
So, is this the decline of Canadian morality? Are we better off as a society? Are you likely to visit a brothel if they become as common as Starbucks?
Stinky linky: http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario...ws-brothels-but-soliciting-ruled-illegal?bn=1
However, due to a ruling passed down from the Supreme Court of Ontario, the above is now perfectly legal. This allows women to work out of their homes and to hire bodyguards for protection.
However, it should be noted that the feds have a year to draft new legislation in response to this ruling. Additionally, they can appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada if they want (but I don't think the odds are in their favour since their first appeal has been defeated).
So, is this the decline of Canadian morality? Are we better off as a society? Are you likely to visit a brothel if they become as common as Starbucks?
Stinky linky: http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario...ws-brothels-but-soliciting-ruled-illegal?bn=1
Sex workers should be able to conduct business in homes and brothels, and to hire security so long as the relationship is not exploitative, but communicating for the purposes of prostitution should still be considered illegal, the provinces top court has ruled.
The five-judge panel sided with Ontario Superior Court Justice Susan Himels decision to strike down the law governing bawdy houses, calling it unconstitutional and overly broad.
Three of the five judges, however, disagreed with Himel when it came to communicating for the purpose of prostitution in public, choosing to uphold that law and saying the judge made several errors when she chose to strike it down.