Ontario’s top court has legalized brothels and will allow prostitutes to have security and other staff that is specifically aimed at protecting prostitutes.
In a landmark decision Monday, the court said that prostitution is extremely dangerous work where inherent risks are multiplied by laws preventing prostitutes from working together under one roof or hiring security staff.
Commencing next year, a five-judge panel said unanimously, prostitutes in any part of the province can work legally in brothels that will be operated like ordinary businesses.
As of April 25, they can engage bodyguards or security staff.
The court left intact just one of three key provisions that had been challenged by three current or former prostitutes. It said that communicating in a public place for the purposes of prostitution will remain illegal.
Yet, even that provision narrowly escaped being struck down.
In the court’s only point of disagreement, Mr. Justice James MacPherson and Madam Justice Eleanore Cronk argued that the communication law is unacceptable because it forces street prostitutes to hurriedly negotiate with customers without first being able to size them up.
The refusal of the three other judges to strike down the communication law will likely go a long way to still the fears of politicians and residents who worried about an influx of prostitutes overtly propositioning prospective clients in the streets.
The Crown will doubtless apply for a stay from the Supreme Court. But until they do – and until and unless the Supreme Court grants one – the decision will take effect in a year.
The Ontario appeal court said in Monday’s decision that the bawdy house provision must be struck down in its entirety.
However, it said that it had been able to remodel the pimping law by adding a single phrase. It said that it will remain illegal to live off the avails of prostitution, but only “in circumstances of exploitation.”
A very sensible decision. If a government is not prepared to criminalize prostitution itself, it is unconsciable for it to enact other laws that make a legal activity more dangerous.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."
Sex work in the ACT became legal with the enactment of the Prostitution Act, 1992.
• The Act is administered by the ACT Office of Fair Trading (OFT).
• Under the Act there are two types of legal sex work in the ACT, working privately or working in a brothel. Street work is illegal in the ACT.
REGISTRATION
• In the ACT we have a “Registrar of Brothels and Escort Agencies”. His job (it’s currently a man called Tony Brown), is to keep a register of information provided by brothel owners or operators, and private workers. Brothel information is available for public inspection but private worker information is not.
• Private sex workers or “sole operators” are required to register with the OFT before they start working in the ACT and renew their registrations annually before 1st October each year. Initial registration costs approx. $200 and renewals approx. $100 each year. Workers must produce 100 pts of I.D. to register.
• Commercial brothels, ie more than two workers, are also required to register with the OFT and owners of commercial brothels must undergo a criminal record check (private workers don’t have to).
• Disqualifying offences for commercial brothel owners include rape, murder and other serious offences (Prostitution Act, 1992, Schedule 1). This also applies to offences committed in a foreign country.
• The Registrar has given SWOP assurances that private worker information kept by OFT can only be accessed by the police (who enforce the Act). He says he does not give other government agencies (such as ATO and Centrelink) or the public access to the Private Workers Register.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Prophylactics (condoms, etc): It is an offence to provide or receive commercial sexual services that involve vaginal, anal or oral penetration if you don’t use condoms, dams, gloves, etc. It is also an offence for owners or operators to discourage the use of condoms.
You still interested in a holiday here?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Prophylactics (condoms, etc): It is an offence to provide or receive commercial sexual services that involve vaginal, anal or oral penetration if you don’t use condoms, dams, gloves, etc. It is also an offence for owners or operators to discourage the use of condoms.
I would hope that the punishment for such offenses would fall more heavily on johns, who would be the ones insisting on sex without condoms, than on the prostitutes who risk losing clients if they don't comply.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."
Me too, (but don't ask me for the reality, I don't know.)
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Is it appropriate under Canadian jurisprudence for the Judiciary to make public policy decisions?
I see that it is required that one use a condom during various sorts of intercourse. I don't see any stipulation on what the condom must be used FOR. Could I put one on my big toe to keep it from getting soiled? Would that conform with the law?
It is appropriate for the Canadian judiciary to ensure that laws passed by Parliament conform to the Constitution.
And the requirement to use condoms has nothing to do with Canadian law. Do at least try to keep up, if you're going to make a (failed) attempt to get cute.
As to wrapping your big toe, I suppose that's up to you, if you use it in penetrative sex in any of the enumerated orifices. Perhaps you would do the rest of us the favour of keeping that to yourself, as it would definitely be TMI.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."
In the court’s only point of disagreement, Mr. Justice James MacPherson and Madam Justice Eleanore Cronk argued that the communication law is unacceptable because it forces street prostitutes to hurriedly negotiate with customers without first being able to size them up.
Well that does count
Meade
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Of course, in places like New York City, having condoms in their possession can be used as evidence against prostitutes. Which of course leads to them not carrying condoms instead.
