An unsurprising court decision

[james_davis_nicoll]

Ontario's top court has struck down the ban on brothels and ruled that prostitutes should be able to hire bodyguards.

The need for private guards is because historically cops don't give a crap about what happens to hookers, which is how Robert Pickton was able to murder 49 prostitutes before the police belatedly got shamed into doing something about him.

I wonder how long it will take some objectively pro-serial killer social conservative to object to this court decision?

Looks more like another case of judicial activism rather than interpretation of consititutional law.

Well, not long at all. And it's even signed "John Galt".

Comments

[redbird]

Do I even want to think about the "libertarian" argument for government restricting the sex trade, or insisting that certain classes of private citizens should not be able to spend their money on hiring private protection if the police don't serve their needs?

No.

[james_davis_nicoll]

"John Galt" says Randroid to me, not libertarian.

[viktor-haag.livejournal.com]

So, it's still illegal to "live off the avails of prostitution" if you're doing it "under circumstances of exploitation". That seems like a potentially particularly nasty bit of hair-splitting. (Presumably, there's some effort to explain what those circumstances might actually look like? Would it be as simple as someone taking a cut of a worker's wages?)

Heard on the radio this morning that Feds have already stated that they will seek to challenge this ruling. Because they really want to be present in the bedrooms of the nation, presumably.

The fallout from this issue may prove very interesting indeed: the amount of weaselling around the language with regard to Canada's sex-trade laws is remarkable, and I can't imagine that this process is going to simplify it.

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

I wonder if "under circumstances of exploitation" is in there to prevent children of prostitutes from being arrested for living off the avails.

Re:

[viktor-haag.livejournal.com]

From the linked article, I understood that living off the avails was still operative for those "under circumstances of exploitation" but not for others. It's hard to know what the right answer would be here, just reading the article. I hesitate to dive directly into the criminal code for answers... 8(

[doc-lemming.livejournal.com]

No, you should look. I found it informative when I looked at it again this year--my daughter being (at the time) 16, and all sorts of bits of rules that used to apply to 16-year-olds have changed.

I am not an expert in either smut or law (an interested onlooker in both cases), but I did not get the impression that the changes were to the approval of the more liberal among us.

Re:

[nathan helfinstine (from livejournal.com)]

Sounds to me like it's trying to distinguish between pimps and professional managers/agents, making the former illegal but not the latter.

[viktor-haag.livejournal.com]

Ahhhh! Of course. So people who are keeping a stable of people locked up in a room, or addicted to dope, or punishing them into submission somehow, are still guilty of "living off the avails". That makes sense. The way the article was written made it sound like it was sex trade worker him or herself that would be judged against, but that's not necessarily the case -- it's the person living off the avails of that person's toil. I gotcha.

[dewline.livejournal.com]

In which case, surely we still have a section on "slavery" in the Criminal Code which ought to suffice?

[nathan helfinstine (from livejournal.com)]

Probably not. While I'm not a lawyer and thus not a Canadian lawyer, slavery tends to be pretty tightly defined, as is kidnapping and unlawful imprisonment. Most pimp/prostitute relations don't fit those definitions. Most abusive marriages don't fit those definitions either, and the reasons are surprisingly similar. E.g. the woman is physically capable of leaving, but she chooses not to. The rare instances where the woman is physically prevented from leaving do result in charges of kidnapping etc.

Footnotes: I use the word "woman" as the person in the negative power relationship, even though I am aware that male prostitution does exist. When I use the phrase "she chooses not to" I am aware that most women in the stipulated circumstances feel that their choices are constrained, but the law generally does not punish emotional manipulation of adults. While I am not an expert on prostitution, I have talked with someone who is, and also with an expert on abusive family relations.

Re:

[dewline.livejournal.com]

That is a disturbing thought in its own right, right in the middle of a mess that seems fraught with ethical peril no matter which way you might turn.

[refugee50s.livejournal.com]

"The need for private guards ... because historically cops don't give a crap about what happens to hookers" is also an excellent argument for allowing sex workers to exercise their fundamental human right to defend themselves, and to give them the tools to do it with.

Oh, yeah, and I'd like to see prostitution legalized, too.

[refugee50s.livejournal.com]

Pardon, I mistyped. Not "give them the tools", but "exercise...their right...to possess the tools...."

Although if they want to be members of the militia, and carry militia issue weapons, that's fine too.

[refugee50s.livejournal.com]

Because I hold the entirely heretical view that women are just as capable as men of managing their own lives, even in matters of life and death like self-defense.

Crazy, I know. Sane people should know that those silly girls are all confused weaklings who should properly depend on big strong men in uniform to defend them.

I just don't get it, I guess.

[keithmm.livejournal.com]

Possibly because it's a bit impractical for a person in many situations to comfortably have sex while carrying a sidearm?

[refugee50s.livejournal.com]

I'll note that sex workers spend a substantial amount of time not having sex.

Must they be defenseless even then?

Also, it is not impossible to keep a weapon in reach even while having sex.

Finally, no, none of this will work 100% of the time. Nothing will. I speak here only of improving the odds.

[izeinwinter.livejournal.com]

Eh, purely as a practical matter, the level of force a prostitute needs applied is very frequently going to be "You are very drunk/high/otherwise obnoxtious, and there just isnt enough money in your wallet/the world for me to put up with this shit. The intimidating professional practitioner of violence will now escort you off the premises". A gun is not an appropriate substitute for that service. How to reliably keep the providers of said service from turning abusive on their employers is not an entirely trivial problem.

[refugee50s.livejournal.com]

Also, my position is that individuals, even women, even women who become sex workers, should be the ones who decide for themselves what's "practical", and what's not. It doesn't seem wise to me for those women to allow the government, which, as noted, is not terribly concerned with their safety, to make that decision for them.

[eyelessgame.livejournal.com]

I detect a possibly unwarranted implicit assumption when you claim that hiring bodyguards is in opposition to the idea of women being capable of committing necessary defensive violence.

[refugee50s.livejournal.com]

Does Canadian law recognize the right of its subjects to possess and carry long-distance hole punches, even small ones such as might fit in a purse?

Hiring bodyguards is often presented as a reasonable alternative to true self-defense. But in fact, there is a substantial on-going expense involved. Also, doing so requires you to surrender your judgement to a state-approved agent. Finally, you must trust that agent to not take advantage of you in precisely the manner you might seek to defend yourself from.

[timgueguen.livejournal.com]

No, you generally can't pack a piece. It is theoretically possible to get a permit to carry a concealed handgun, but such Authorisation to Carry type 3 is almost never allowed. For example in 2005 there were supposedly only 13 active ATC-3s in Ontario. It should also be noted that typical concealed carry handguns such as a 2 inch barrel revolver or compact semiauto are considered prohibited handguns under Canadian law. Legal handguns in Canada fall under the restricted weapon category and, with a few exceptions, must have a barrel length of 4 and a quarter inches or longer, and be in a caliber besides .25 or .32. So a Walther PPK in .32 ACP is a prohibited handgun, while a Desert Eagle in .44 Magnum would be a restricted handgun.

[eyelessgame.livejournal.com]

the use of "subjects" to describe Canadian citizens is interestingly revealing (in addition to being, at least as far as this U.S. citizen is aware, incorrect).

[refugee50s.livejournal.com]

There are some of us who believe that regardless of the official nomenclature, if the state forbids you to carry or especially possess self defense tools, you are in practice a subject.

In the U.S., only Vermont, Alaska, Wyoming, Arizona, and "parts of" Montana currently have so-called "Constitutional Carry", and only there may the population rightfully call themselves "citizens" without reservation.

And, yes, damn betcha this is offensive in the extreme. We fought a little tussle over the point once, but seem to have forgotten the lessons learned.

[refugee50s.livejournal.com]

Incidentally, I live in Texas, where I am allowed to possess a firearm pretty much without restriction, but must be licensed to carry concealed.

I consider my own citizenship to be somewhat diminished thereby.

[eyelessgame.livejournal.com]

Oops. James, terribly sorry for feeding the infrapont.

[refugee50s.livejournal.com]

Infrapont. Heh. I like that.

"Shut up," you explained. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWHgUE9AD4s)

Thanks for picking up on the "subject" point. I applaud your awareness.

[refugee50s.livejournal.com]

You know what?

You're right to call me out as an infrapont for this discussion..

I apologize, and withdraw.

[keithmm.livejournal.com]

You "fought a little tussle" that had shit all to do about firearms and more to do with not paying the bills someone else ran up protecting your sorry asses, getting upset that the mother country had the gall to allow the Lower Canadians to keep their language and religion, and suggested taking over the lands of the indigenous population might be not be entirely proper, combined with a bunch of rich folks getting annoyed that other rich folks were making more money than themselves.

It's all depending on your point of view.

Incidentally, "subjects" of many other jurisdictions don't need artificial penis substitutes to go on living.

[roseembolism.livejournal.com]

Hiring bodyguards sounds to me like exercising the right to defend themselves.

[refugee50s.livejournal.com]

Hiring someone to defend you is not the same thing as defending yourself. Particularly when body guards must obtain a professional license to possess and carry the necessary tools, if such are prohibited to ordinary subjects.

[scott-sanford.livejournal.com]

It's the difference between hiring a plumber and climbing under the sink with a wrench and a DIY book. Both are equally offensive to those who believe the natural state of humanity is to try to cook while the kitchen is ankle-deep in cold water.

[refugee50s.livejournal.com]

Yes, exactly.

Oddly, I like to do my own home repairs, and I resent efforts to make doing them illegal, especially since I spend more time fixing the mistakes of licensed pros than I do fixing the problems at hand.

[ilya187.livejournal.com]

Are you in Canada? I am asking because prostitution is legal in Canada, just always had a ton of restrictions -- quite a bit less as of now.

[refugee50s.livejournal.com]

I should have written, "I have no problem with sex work being legal."

[jeffr23.livejournal.com]

Y'know, if you're going to call yourself 'John Galt', you really have an obligation to get the dogma right. (And the party line is 'it's immoral, but the government shouldn't outlaw it' in this case.) (And objectivists aren't supposed to be particularly small-d democratic, so shouldn't favor legislatures over judiciaries in general)

[vass]

I am confused, possibly because I don't know any of the background here. Why would John Galt be against private enterprise?

[dewline.livejournal.com]

The choice of self-naming does seem politically and ethically inconsistent with the philosophy they're arguing for.

Not sure what I make of the decision yet...

[ethelmay.livejournal.com]

Figleaf points out that street workers are still just as much as risk as before: http://www.realadultsex.com/archives/2012/03/whatever-else-one-can-say-recent-ontario-brothel-court-ruling-one-cant-say-it-prote

(The URL puts some people off, but no, it's not a p0rn site.)