

All three laws are down! One year stay on the old laws, so 365 days for Canada to decide how it feels about prostitutes.
We'll see how this goes... Step one completed!!!
Toronto-based, very rough draft, constantly asking for input!
Our bodies, our rules.
Stand together or fall apart.





^^^ yup, based on a literal reading of the Canadian Supreme Court ruling, after the 1 year transition period there should be zero national or provincial laws against offering acts of prostitution in strip clubs, nor for the club owner to profit from them.




Canada is soooo progressive compared to the US.
(A few years ago, like 2008, San Francisco had it's own vote on decriminalization which OF COURSE I voted for. My boyf at the time voted against it "just to cancel out [my] vote." What a dick. But it gave me a little hope that steps might be taken in this direction eventually....)
mellymay.com
Not exactly. That one year is for parliament to bring in new legislation that IS constitutional, and that will certainly entail some regulations against, what the Chief Justice called "nuisances." I would be very surprised if there wasn't a classification made between strip clubs (and their licenses and city bylaw regulations) and brothels (who surely will be regulated/licensed in some way as well so they don't become a "nuisance" to communities with children/churches/pearl clutchers). This is certainly not the end of regulation on prostitution in Canada!
Last edited by shanna dior; 12-20-2013 at 03:01 PM.





^^^ time will tell how the 'nuisances' exception will be applied. The obvious application would be cities limiting 'public' solicitation in certain areas i.e. suburban Canadians not wanting to see prostitutes publicly 'plying their trade' at the local shopping mall. I also agree that no government likes to miss an opportunity to tax and regulate any legal business, so it will be interesting to see how that all works out re licensing of prostitutes themselves and the venues where their services can be offered. We'll have to wait and see whether or not that will translate into ( random example ) Toronto dancers needing both a dancer's license and a prostitute's license to be able to offer 'extras' in Toronto strip clubs in the future.
Also, when countries combine legalized prostitution with other government rules, some SERIOUSLY unintended consequences can emerge ...
^^^ story about Dutch prostitutes seeking the same gov't pension perks as professional athletes
^^^ story about a number of post-legalization developments in Germany
In fairness, I have to add that, as the result of widespread public opposition, the German gov't was finally forced to pass a special law to stop the scenario described in the news story ... where long term unemployed German women were faced with the difficult choice of accepting ( suddenly 100% legal ) work as a prostitute or having their gov't unemployment benefits cut off. However, removing prostitutes and their places of work from the gov't 'system' for normal employers and workers ( in order to remove the occupation of prostitute from the gov't unemployment 'system' ) also denied German prostitutes eligibility for gov't 'system' benefits.
Please note that I'm not necessarily saying that any of the unintended consequences that Germany, Holland etc. experienced after legalizing prostitution will take place in Canada ... only that 'Pandora's Box' has now been opened by the Canadian Supreme Court ruling.
Last edited by Melonie; 12-21-2013 at 05:55 AM.




I skimmed very quickly through the judgment last night and I remember reading that it would be up to the legislator to define where prostitution could be taken place in that one year, and the limits.
http://scc-csc.lexum.com/decisia-scc...13389/index.do
Last edited by xStacey; 12-21-2013 at 10:07 AM.



I wonder what their policy on foreign sex workers and dancers looking to get a visa will be now, if any change takes place at all.





^^^ the issue of work visas etc. is a totally separate subject and gov't dep't.
Also, the Supreme Court ruling is pretty clear on a fundamental future issue for those mandated to 'rewrite' Canadian laws within a year to comply with the court's ruling. From your link ...
(snip)All three principles compare the rights infringement caused by the law with the objective of the law, not with the law’s effectiveness; they do not look to how well the law achieves its object, or to how much of the population the law benefits or is negatively impacted. The analysis is qualitative, not quantitative. The question under s. 7 is whether anyone’s life, liberty or security of the person has been denied by a law that is inherently bad; a grossly disproportionate, overbroad, or arbitrary effect on one person is sufficient to establish a breach of s. 7.(snip)
This statement is arguably in direct conflict with earlier Canadian and still effective American doctrine which followed the Star Trek-ian doctrine of 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one'. Thus under the new Canadian doctrine it will be very very difficult to legislate against prostitution based on the majority wishes of a particular community, a particular religion, etc. that they simply don't want prostitution taking place anywhere near them.
However, like American law, there doesn't appear to be any specific provision that would 'override' the right of a local community to enact zoning laws. It remains to be seen whether the Canadian SC interpretation will still allow business establishments involving prostitution to be treated differently from other types of businesses. Thus it remains to be seen if attempts by local communities to force establishments involving prostitution NOT to be located in certain areas can remain in place without also requiring that bars, clubs, etc. can no longer be located in those certain areas either.
Again, my only point is that this ruling has created the potential for all sorts of future unintended consequences.
Last edited by Melonie; 12-21-2013 at 02:35 PM.
Bookmarks