Ontario Court of Appeal greenlights brothels

**Automation Gallery** · 2012-Mar-26, 15:22

Holy Mackerel

Now this is not good

Here in Toronto this is going to make a Casino look like small change.

Ontario Court of Appeal greenlights brothels, sweeps aside many of Canada’s anti-prostitution laws

•LEGAL: Working in organized brothels or “bawdy houses”
•LEGAL: Hiring drivers, bodyguards and support staff
•ILLEGAL: Openly soliciting customers on the street
•ILLEGAL: “Exploitation” of sex workers by pimps

TORONTO – The Court of Appeal for Ontario has swept aside some of the country’s anti-prostitution laws saying they place unconstitutional restrictions on prostitutes’ ability to protect themselves.

The landmark decision means sex workers will be able to hire drivers, bodyguards and support staff and work indoors in organized brothels or “bawdy houses,” while “exploitation” by pimps remains illegal.

However, openly soliciting customers on the street remains prohibited with the judges deeming that “a reasonable limit on the right to freedom of expression.”

The province’s highest court suspended the immediate implementation of striking the bawdy house law for a year to allow the government an opportunity to amend the Criminal Code.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03...titution-laws/

**Tulse** · 2012-Mar-26, 15:34

Seems reasonable to me -- it helps get prostitution (which is, of course, legal) off the streets, which is safer and saner for everyone. And it means that "brothel" locations can be regulated, rather than either a) having streetwalkers, and/or b) prostitutes working out of their own residences illegally and without any regulation, and/or c) illegal brothels.

**ladyscraper** · 2012-Mar-26, 16:34

The judges are some of their best customers so it was in their best interest to get this passed through.

**a0th** · 2012-Mar-26, 17:13

why is this not good? do you enjoy beating prostitutes up, op?

**Automation Gallery** · 2012-Mar-26, 17:21

Originally Posted by a0th

why is this not good? do you enjoy beating prostitutes up, op?

Just my opinion, i sure wouldnt want a brothel next to my residence...do you

gabe · 2012-Mar-26, 17:23

This is a step in the right direction. I would rather have a brothel next to me than a university residence.

**TOareaFan** · 2012-Mar-26, 17:28

I ask this question for know reason other than I do not know.....are there other professions that have the explicit right to hire bodyguards?

**Hank** · 2012-Mar-26, 17:34

It's not so much that hiring a bodyguard per se was made legal, it's that "living on the avails of prostitution" (the former offence) was changed to "living on the avails of prostitution in circumstances of exploitation".

Previously, if a prostitute hired a bodyguard the bodyguard could be charged with "living on the avails of prostitution" (since the money he was paid originally came from prostitution). Now, as long as the bodyguards (or drivers, or managers, or whoever) aren't actually exploiting the prostitute to make the money, it's okay. It's designed so that we can still charge the kind of pimps that actually do exploit the women, while allowing the woman to better their situation in other ways by hiring help.

**Automation Gallery** · 2012-Mar-26, 17:34

So who is going to run the show here, the brothels that is...the Ontario Government or the thugs (mafia, bikers, ex-pimps gone business men etc.)

**TOareaFan** · 2012-Mar-26, 17:49

Originally Posted by Hank

It's not so much that hiring a bodyguard per se was made legal, it's that "living on the avails of prostitution" (the former offence) was changed to "living on the avails of prostitution in circumstances of exploitation".

Previously, if a prostitute hired a bodyguard the bodyguard could be charged with "living on the avails of prostitution" (since the money he was paid originally came from prostitution). Now, as long as the bodyguards (or drivers, or managers, or whoever) aren't actually exploiting the prostitute to make the money, it's okay. It's designed so that we can still charge the kind of pimps that actually do exploit the women, while allowing the woman to better their situation in other ways by hiring help.

Thanks for taking the time to reply....I think I understand the logic....but I am pretty sure I don't like where this is going. 3 people in a room when the police arrive.....a prostitute, a bodyguard and a beaten up john who, perhaps, didn't pay enough. 2 of those people are going to say "he was acting in a manner which was threatening to the safety and well being of the legally working sex worker" one of the people is going to say "she told me $50 then this guy pops out looking for another $200".

Are we going to regulate the bodyguards too? Professional standards for bodyguards? I hate "slippery slope" arguments.....but this seems to fit here. (IMHO).

**fiendishlibrarian** · 2012-Mar-26, 18:22

Originally Posted by gabe

This is a step in the right direction. I would rather have a brothel next to me than a university residence.

Based on my individual experience during both my undergrad and grad years, that's a distinction without a difference...

**freshcutgrass** · 2012-Mar-26, 18:27

why is this not good? do you enjoy beating prostitutes up, op?

No...he just obviously doesn't agree with our constitutional rights when it doesn't jive with his personal agenda.

Just my opinion, i sure wouldnt want a brothel next to my residence...do you

Which is why it's also conveniently legal for you to move if you don't like your neighbours.

**Automation Gallery** · 2012-Mar-26, 18:42

Originally Posted by freshcutgrass

No...he just obviously doesn't agree with our constitutional rights when it doesn't jive with his personal agenda.

Which is why it's also conveniently legal for you to move if you don't like your neighbours.

Ok you are coming on heavy, and want an argument.....im out of here

**freshcutgrass** · 2012-Mar-26, 18:56

Ok you are coming on heavy, and want an argument.....im out of here

I think it is you who fails to comprehend the "heaviness" of your comments.

When the judicial system has deemed a law unconstitutional, you should be happy. But since you think it is "not good", then you either don't agree with the constitution...or the judiciary system.

And that's a big problem.