4 ms·

Canada has a pretty good Charter of Rights. Section 7 involves security of the person. That's the rock the existing laws sunk on. Roughly speaking the laws made

by rbobby 13y ago

Canada has a pretty good Charter of Rights. Section 7 involves security of the person. That's the rock the existing laws sunk on. Roughly speaking the laws made a legal activity more risky for no reasonable purpose (which is why Section 1, reasonable limits, couldn't save the law). The Canadian SC is very good at their jobs. They definitely do not make their decisions based on their "personal opinions of what would be fair". Rather, their decisions are based on their measured, professional understanding of the charter, the law and existing jurisprudence, and the effects their decision may have on the administration of justice. Thankfully they are very experienced jurists with great respect for the rule of law and jurisprudence.

pervycreeper 13y ago
I'd like to see the intermediate steps between "security of the person" and legalizing pimping. It would also be mildly alarming to learn that the SC consists of "very experienced jurists with great respect for the rule of law and jurisprudence" only "for the most part".
- rbobby 13y ago
  I have to retract my "for the most part". I was thinking of Nadon... but he was previous Federal Court of Appeal and Federal Court. All the Justices were former jurists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Canada#Current_members http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Canada#Current...).
  - pervycreeper 13y ago
    > I have to retract my "for the most part". I was thinking of Nadon... but he was previous Federal Court of Appeal and Federal Court. Well even after the ninja edits, your comment still reeks of overclass condescension, using meaningless feel-words ("very good at their jobs", "measured, professional understanding"), essentially saying , "trust them, pleb, they know better than you".
    - rbobby 13y ago
      Every decision the SC makes they explain their reasoning in detail (which is published and made available online). Video of proceedings in front of the SC are also available broadcast on CPAC, and available online. If you don't think a group of judges with years of experience knows the charter, the law, and applicable jurisprudence better than the average citizen then you're deluded and need to seek help.
    - eropple 13y ago
      > Well even after the ninja edits, your comment still reeks of overclass condescension, using meaningless feel-words ("very good at their jobs", "measured, professional understanding"), essentially saying , "trust them, pleb, they know better than you". You don't think it might be an allusion to the American Supreme Court's habit of legislating how they personally feel rather than with any serious basis in fact or precedence? Chill.
- rbobby 13y ago
  Well... the odds on favorite for what Parliament will do is to make prostitution itself illegal. Harper and the Conservative Party are pretty conservative, and so is their base. Any reasonable regulation of the sex trade is pretty unlikely under their watch. Once prostitution itself is illegal then the current legislation might pass muster on the section 7 question. Certainly, at the very least, the courts would need to address the question again.

by rbobby 13y ago

pervycreeper 13y ago

I'd like to see the intermediate steps between "security of the person" and legalizing pimping. It would also be mildly alarming to learn that the SC consists of "very experienced jurists with great respect for the rule of law and jurisprudence" only "for the most part".

rbobby 13y ago
I have to retract my "for the most part". I was thinking of Nadon... but he was previous Federal Court of Appeal and Federal Court. All the Justices were former jurists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Canada#Current_members http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Canada#Current...).
- pervycreeper 13y ago
  > I have to retract my "for the most part". I was thinking of Nadon... but he was previous Federal Court of Appeal and Federal Court. Well even after the ninja edits, your comment still reeks of overclass condescension, using meaningless feel-words ("very good at their jobs", "measured, professional understanding"), essentially saying , "trust them, pleb, they know better than you".
  - rbobby 13y ago
    Every decision the SC makes they explain their reasoning in detail (which is published and made available online). Video of proceedings in front of the SC are also available broadcast on CPAC, and available online. If you don't think a group of judges with years of experience knows the charter, the law, and applicable jurisprudence better than the average citizen then you're deluded and need to seek help.
  - eropple 13y ago
    > Well even after the ninja edits, your comment still reeks of overclass condescension, using meaningless feel-words ("very good at their jobs", "measured, professional understanding"), essentially saying , "trust them, pleb, they know better than you". You don't think it might be an allusion to the American Supreme Court's habit of legislating how they personally feel rather than with any serious basis in fact or precedence? Chill.
rbobby 13y ago
Well... the odds on favorite for what Parliament will do is to make prostitution itself illegal. Harper and the Conservative Party are pretty conservative, and so is their base. Any reasonable regulation of the sex trade is pretty unlikely under their watch. Once prostitution itself is illegal then the current legislation might pass muster on the section 7 question. Certainly, at the very least, the courts would need to address the question again.