5 ms·

The nature of the laws would have to change significantly as the court found the entire foundation behind the laws (largely moralizing/restricting the actions o

The nature of the laws would have to change significantly as the court found the entire foundation behind the laws (largely moralizing/restricting the actions of others based upon personal values) unconstitutional. The government can't simply move a couple of punctuation marks and become compliant.

RyanMcGreal 13y ago
Due to the Court's reasoning - i.e. if prostitution is legal, it violates people's rights to prevent them from taking steps to protect their safety while engaging in it - I predict the government will react by making prostitution itself illegal.
- PeterWhittaker 13y ago
  Perhaps, but that possibility has long been in its arsenal: Prostitution has been legal in Canada for years, decades; this court ruling overturned as unconstitutional the laws criminalizing many associated activities, e.g., solicitation, living off the avails, etc. It was illegal to talk to a John, making vetting the John uh, difficult. It was illegal to hire bodyguards, because they would be living off the avails. While the ruling comes into effect only next year, the practical upshot, as with other rulings of this ilk in recent years, is that arrest and prosecution will now proceed only in the most egregious cases. My bold and brave prediction is that this Conservative-majority Parliament will duck the issue altogether and make regulation of prostitution a provincial matter - simply because they are unlikely to be able to reach any sort of consensus that would not fracture a fragile alliance between the ultra-conservative base, which makes most of the contributions, and the just right of centre centrists that are its silent majority.
  - RyanMcGreal 13y ago
    > My bold and brave prediction is that this Conservative-majority Parliament will duck the issue altogether I hope you're right. What you've proposed is likely the best we could expect from this government.
patmcc 13y ago
Actually they can: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Thirty-three_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Thirty-three_of_the_Can... Parliament can specifically say "we know this law is unconstitutional, but we like it anyway, so it's staying for 5 years. And then we can renew it if we want." They may not want to do that, as it's a pretty strong thing to do, but they are absolutely able to.
- corresation 13y ago
  Use of the incredibly contentious notwithstanding clause is in no way moving some punctuation marks: It is an extraordinary action, having never been used by the federal government. So no, in the context of what I said they can't.
  - patmcc 13y ago
    From a political standpoint, absolutely it's extraordinary; from a legal standpoint it's relatively simple, just needing a majority vote. I'd be very surprised if they did invoke it, but prostitution is something a lot of Canadians (especially conservatives) feel pretty strongly about. (And mainly, I was just trying to bring up an interesting legal quirk of our constitution, since it's fairly unusual and most of HN's audience might not be aware of it).
- jrockway 13y ago
  And the Queen of England can dissolve the parliament. It's a pretty strong thing to do, but she is absolutely able to.
  - beedogs 13y ago
    The precedent for this was set in Australia in 1975, and certainly other places before that.
    - redcap 13y ago
      The dismissal of parliament in 1975 Australia was done by the Governor-General, who is the Queen's representative in Australia. The Queen herself did nothing.
VladRussian2 13y ago
>The nature of the laws would have to change significantly as the court found the entire foundation behind the laws (largely moralizing/restricting the actions of others based upon personal values) unconstitutional. following that logic most laws would be unconstitutional.
- chebucto 13y ago
  examples, please
  - jsmeaton 13y ago
    I would imagine some examples would be: - personal drug use (of any kind) - bans on same-sex marriage (which I just looked up, and seems to be legal in Canada anyway) - any form of gun control I'm not saying that I do or do not think the above should be legal, but they all are examples of "we know what's best for you". I think that's what the GP commenter was alluding to.
    - throwaway2048 13y ago
      all of these have been ruled unconstitutional by the Canadian supreme court at one point or another.

RyanMcGreal 13y ago

Due to the Court's reasoning - i.e. if prostitution is legal, it violates people's rights to prevent them from taking steps to protect their safety while engaging in it - I predict the government will react by making prostitution itself illegal.

PeterWhittaker 13y ago
Perhaps, but that possibility has long been in its arsenal: Prostitution has been legal in Canada for years, decades; this court ruling overturned as unconstitutional the laws criminalizing many associated activities, e.g., solicitation, living off the avails, etc. It was illegal to talk to a John, making vetting the John uh, difficult. It was illegal to hire bodyguards, because they would be living off the avails. While the ruling comes into effect only next year, the practical upshot, as with other rulings of this ilk in recent years, is that arrest and prosecution will now proceed only in the most egregious cases. My bold and brave prediction is that this Conservative-majority Parliament will duck the issue altogether and make regulation of prostitution a provincial matter - simply because they are unlikely to be able to reach any sort of consensus that would not fracture a fragile alliance between the ultra-conservative base, which makes most of the contributions, and the just right of centre centrists that are its silent majority.
- RyanMcGreal 13y ago
  > My bold and brave prediction is that this Conservative-majority Parliament will duck the issue altogether I hope you're right. What you've proposed is likely the best we could expect from this government.

patmcc 13y ago

Actually they can: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Thirty-three_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Thirty-three_of_the_Can... Parliament can specifically say "we know this law is unconstitutional, but we like it anyway, so it's staying for 5 years. And then we can renew it if we want." They may not want to do that, as it's a pretty strong thing to do, but they are absolutely able to.

corresation 13y ago
Use of the incredibly contentious notwithstanding clause is in no way moving some punctuation marks: It is an extraordinary action, having never been used by the federal government. So no, in the context of what I said they can't.
- patmcc 13y ago
  From a political standpoint, absolutely it's extraordinary; from a legal standpoint it's relatively simple, just needing a majority vote. I'd be very surprised if they did invoke it, but prostitution is something a lot of Canadians (especially conservatives) feel pretty strongly about. (And mainly, I was just trying to bring up an interesting legal quirk of our constitution, since it's fairly unusual and most of HN's audience might not be aware of it).
jrockway 13y ago
And the Queen of England can dissolve the parliament. It's a pretty strong thing to do, but she is absolutely able to.
- beedogs 13y ago
  The precedent for this was set in Australia in 1975, and certainly other places before that.
  - redcap 13y ago
    The dismissal of parliament in 1975 Australia was done by the Governor-General, who is the Queen's representative in Australia. The Queen herself did nothing.

VladRussian2 13y ago

>The nature of the laws would have to change significantly as the court found the entire foundation behind the laws (largely moralizing/restricting the actions of others based upon personal values) unconstitutional. following that logic most laws would be unconstitutional.

chebucto 13y ago
examples, please
- jsmeaton 13y ago
  I would imagine some examples would be: - personal drug use (of any kind) - bans on same-sex marriage (which I just looked up, and seems to be legal in Canada anyway) - any form of gun control I'm not saying that I do or do not think the above should be legal, but they all are examples of "we know what's best for you". I think that's what the GP commenter was alluding to.
  - throwaway2048 13y ago
    all of these have been ruled unconstitutional by the Canadian supreme court at one point or another.