Ontario Court of Appeal greenlights brothels

[SunriseChampion]

And what's with the talk of setbacks from schools, etc and zoning? What, is it illegal to have sex in a private dwelling if it happens to be within X metres of a school? I have much to learn, apparently. As I mentioned: am I committing illegal acts when someone comes over for a bit of the ol' in-out and then makes me breakfast? That's a sort of compensation I'd say (and I gladly take it over money). I just don't have my knickers in a knot I suppose and don't really understand those who do. Our government is trying to grapple with a 16 billion dollar deficit and we're going to worry about people getting laid and where they should do it? Some of you might hate me...I don't have curtains.

 

[SunriseChampion]

And I don't even think I need to get into the absurdity of the laws as they were where it's legal to have sex for money but not legal to set up any sort of regulated environment to do so, preventing any of it from being all that safe for anyone involved. Hello.....reason? Yeah, they want you back here, asap.

Yup....just like the absurd drug laws in this country. "Maybe if we try to clamp down"....no, you silly bastards....that just lets organised crime have a bloody field day and prevents people with problems from getting the help they need and leads to tear-jerking exploitation of marginalised people and causes loads of police funding to be mis-spent, and, and, and, I could go on but I don't think I need to.

Maybe it's just me as I tend to worry about things like the weather on the week-end and when my next holiday's going to be. Some of you guys may be in line for one, I'd wager.

 

[Just_Chris]

What he's saying is, that this will lower the incidence of illegal brothels, by giving them legal status in appropriate locations.

I don't know what makes people think there will be more prostitution going on.

Of course there will be less illegal brothels. Because they will now be legal.

I don't know too many people who would want them in their neighbourhood. Especially people with children. What exactly would be an "appropriate location"? An apartment immediately next door to another apartment where small children live? Would that be appropriate? Near a school that children walk by?

I'm just curious what kind of location would be "appropriate""?

 

[freshcutgrass]

Of course there will be less illegal brothels. Because they will now be legal.

Ha ha...ok, that's a good one.

What I meant was...they are all illegal at the moment. If the Ontario Supreme Court ruling survives, then prostitutes will have a choice to operate out of legal premises (as yet undetermined of course). The premises that will continue to be illegal will be reduced, as many will choose to operate within the law, if given the option.

This does not mean that any current brothel will automatically become legal.

What exactly would be an "appropriate location"? An apartment immediately next door to another apartment where small children live?

Municipal/condo bylaws already prohibit this, and will continue to do so. You can't operate a brothel out of your apartment, any more than you can operate a pizza parlour. And either soliciting, or performing prostitution in a public place or pimping is still illegal, so that's not going to change.

But I'm a little curious as to what it is about prostitution that you find so inappropriate to "children". Unless they are involved (which will always be very illegal), children are oblivious to it...it's the adults that have the moral issues. Prostitution is just the buying and selling of sexual services between consenting adults, which is perfectly legal in Canada. Consenting adults have sex because they are horny...to pro-create...as an expression of emotional connection...or in exchange for favours/money.

It's safe to assume that there are people having sex in that next door apartment, so it boils down to you not liking the reason they are having sex, and that's simply not something you, or the state have a right to determine.

I'm just curious what kind of location would be "appropriate""?

I have no idea...that will probably be up to municipalities to handle. This should make the circus down at City Hall even more interesting.

But I must say, that creating "red light districts" is just another form of ghettoizing, and always a bad move.

 

[TOareaFan]

Ha ha...ok, that's a good one.

What I meant was...they are all illegal at the moment. If the Ontario Supreme Court ruling survives, then prostitutes will have a choice to operate out of legal premises (as yet undetermined of course). The premises that will continue to be illegal will be reduced, as many will choose to operate within the law, if given the option.

This does not mean that any current brothel will automatically become legal.

Well, from a criminal code persepective, if the ruling survives then yes it does......they may contravene zoning bylaws or other such regulations geared towards locating them....but, as brothels, they would no longer be in contravention of the criminal code.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Well, from a criminal code persepective, if the ruling survives then yes it does......they may contravene zoning bylaws or other such regulations geared towards locating them....but, as brothels, they would no longer be in contravention of the criminal code.

What use is there in playing with semantics regarding which statutes make it illegal?

In fact, the whole "moral" issue is irrelevant here as well. You either respect people's rights as dictated by the Constitution and the Judiciary...or you don't. If you don't, then you are a much bigger threat than a whore.

 

[TOareaFan]

What use is there in playing with semantics regarding which statutes make it illegal?

In fact, the whole "moral" issue is irrelevant here as well. You either respect people's rights as dictated by the Constitution and the Judiciary...or you don't. If you don't, then you are a much bigger threat than a whore.

I am really struggling to see any moral discussion (or hint thereof) in the post you are responding to but if it is there I will take your word for it.

As for "semantics"..there is a big difference between being illegal in a criminal code sense from violating a zoning bylaw. Sorta like the difference between a motor vehicle violation that is against the highway traffic act (say, doing 20k over the limit) and one that is a criminal code violation (say, being drunk and driving).

Also, I doubt that any municipality currently has zoning bylaws covering brothels and bawdy houses...since, prior to this, they were illegal to exist anywhere. So there will be a time period of adjustment for municipalities to respond with those bylaws.

 

[freshcutgrass]

I am really struggling to see any moral discussion (or hint thereof) in the post you are responding to

You are kidding?

As for "semantics"..there is a big difference between being illegal in a criminal code sense from violating a zoning bylaw.

Why...is one more illegal than the other? We aren't debating the seriousness of offences, as determined by the possible punishment for violation.

Also, I doubt that any municipality currently has zoning bylaws covering brothels and bawdy houses...since, prior to this, they were illegal to exist anywhere. So there will be a time period of adjustment for municipalities to respond with those bylaws.

Don't quote me on this, but I'm sure it is illegal to operate a business in the city without an appropriate business license, so if brothels no longer violate the Criminal Code, they will most likely remain illegal until such new bylaws are enacted and licenses issued. It sounds like a mess...who knows how it will play out.

Of course, now I'm playing with semantics, as an existing bawdy house that violates the criminal code isn't likely to stop once they are only violating municipal bylaws.

The ruling doesn't change anything other than the ability of sex workers to work in a safer environment....that is the entire point of the whole thing. And a prostitution business that is safer is simply better for society in general over the status quo. It's the people that think such changes will impede their desire to eliminate prostitution who should stop kidding themselves.

 

[TOareaFan]

You are kidding?

No...not kidding.

 

[freshcutgrass]

I don't know too many people who would want them in their neighbourhood. Especially people with children. What exactly would be an "appropriate location"? An apartment immediately next door to another apartment where small children live? Would that be appropriate? Near a school that children walk by?

The operative word here seems to be children. Not that anybody is suggesting putting brothels in apartment buildings or next to schools in the first place (hyperbole), but what is this concern about children? There's no practical reason to be concerned that increased safety for prostitutes or the idea of legal brothels pose a danger to children. So all that is left is the moral issue surrounding prostitution. And I have not met a child yet that has moral issues with prostitution, so it boils down to adults with moral issues about prostitution, hiding behind children.

 

[TOareaFan]

The operative word here seems to be children. Not that anybody is suggesting putting brothels in apartment buildings or next to schools in the first place (hyperbole), but what is this concern about children? There's no practical reason to be concerned that increased safety for prostitutes or the idea of legal brothels pose a danger to children. So all that is left is the moral issue surrounding prostitution. And I have not met a child yet that has moral issues with prostitution, so it boils down to adults with moral issues about prostitution, hiding behind children.

oh...so the moral issue you refer to was, neither, in the post you responded to nor written by me.....I will move on.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Not about you .

 

[kkgg7]

I fail to see the "moral issue" surrounding prostitution. Prostitutes sell a service out of their own willingness to an existing market, not so much unlike someone pays you to paint his wall and mow his lawn, what's the moral issue here? If prostitution should be banned and punishable, shouldn't extramarital love affairs more immoral and be punished by the law too?

To say it will affect children negatively (good catch words, always children) is flimsy. Should parents stop having sex so that their children won't be affected? It is voluntary sex between two adults. How does it matter if money is involved or not (I doubt children will even know money is involved).

 

[LordWanker]

I fail to see the "moral issue" surrounding prostitution. Prostitutes sell a service out of their own willingness to an existing market, not so much unlike someone pays you to paint his wall and mow his lawn, what's the moral issue here? If prostitution should be banned and punishable, shouldn't extramarital love affairs more immoral and be punished by the law too?

To say it will affect children negatively (good catch words, always children) is flimsy. Should parents stop having sex so that their children won't be affected? It is voluntary sex between two adults. How does it matter if money is involved or not (I doubt children will even know money is involved).

It is a puritanical British thing...not that I'm expecting you to understand or even consider.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I doubt any federal leader will ever use it...for any reason....it's too taboo.

Perhaps, and it would be a first for the Federal government. That said, Harper didn't have a majority before, nor an eviscerated, weakened and disorganized Liberal party across the floor. Not to mention the NDP lefties.