[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Malthus]

Quick prediction - in response Harper and Co will make prostitution itself illegal.  The conflict in this case was that prostitution was, and always has been, legal in and of itself, but related actions were not.

Question:

Is the legality of prostitution a no-body-cares, the government can do what they want and people may (or may not) grumble about it but in the end it's nothing kind of thing? Or is it something with actual political weight and consequences?

That's the big question, isn't it.

Harper & Co obviously are keen on not being seen as being reactionary social conservatives, which doesn't play well.  But there are some pretty strong reasons on why those laws were in effect in the first place.  Streetwalking for example brings with it a whole host of other unsavoury activities (hand to hand drug trafficking, increased traffic, used condoms lieing around, etc).  Nobody wants to live next door to a brothel.  And there's the german experience where even within a legal system there is still rampant trafficking of women going on.

My guess is that the feds will kick it down to the municipalities to deal with as a zoning issue.

[Admiral Yi]

My guess is that the feds will kick it down to the municipalities to deal with as a zoning issue.

Yup.  X kilometers from a school, not zoned residential, etc.

[Barrister]

They may wind up doing that (which means Yi - I will decline your bet), but I think the downside risk of doing nothing is a lot bigger than Malthus does.

[Admiral Yi]

Homo.

[crazy canuck]

They could also simply pass a law for the express purpose of outlawing prostitution on the basis that prostitution is morally wrong. Again, if there was the political will to do it.

I think you missed my point.  There is nothing simple about defining what prostitution might be without making a number of unintended social interactions illegal.  That is why, even in our most prudish history, prostitution itself was not made illegal.

[Jacob]

Homo.

I expect the law, however it turns out, will not distinguish between homo and hetero prostitution.

[crazy canuck]

There's no reasoning behind it. 

Ah, didnt read the decision I see.

[Admiral Yi]

They may wind up doing that (which means Yi - I will decline your bet), but I think the downside risk of doing nothing is a lot bigger than Malthus does.

I could see your point more if the court decision had rendered prostitution legal.  But the status quo was legal prostitution.  This ruling is just about its regulation.

[crazy canuck]

  But there are some pretty strong reasons on why those laws were in effect in the first place. 

Yeah, the same group that thought the laws regarding prohibition were good.

[crazy canuck]

They may wind up doing that (which means Yi - I will decline your bet), but I think the downside risk of doing nothing is a lot bigger than Malthus does.

I could see your point more if the court decision had rendered prostitution legal.  But the status quo was legal prostitution.  This ruling is just about its regulation.

Exactly.  The law made no sense at all - ie you can do it, just not in any way that might be safe for you to do it.

[Barrister]

They may wind up doing that (which means Yi - I will decline your bet), but I think the downside risk of doing nothing is a lot bigger than Malthus does.

I could see your point more if the court decision had rendered prostitution legal.  But the status quo was legal prostitution.  This ruling is just about its regulation.

Not really, no.

The status quo outlawed pretty much everything about prostitution except for the act itself.

Theoretically you could run a legal prostitution business, but you would have to do no advertising (the rule against solicitation), have no permanent place of business (the bawdy house rule), and have no employees beyond the prostitute themself (the living off the avails rule).

[crazy canuck]

They may wind up doing that (which means Yi - I will decline your bet), but I think the downside risk of doing nothing is a lot bigger than Malthus does.

I could see your point more if the court decision had rendered prostitution legal.  But the status quo was legal prostitution.  This ruling is just about its regulation.

Not really, no.

The status quo outlawed pretty much everything about prostitution except for the act itself.

Theoretically you could run a legal prostitution business, but you would have to do no advertising (the rule against solicitation), have no permanent place of business (the bawdy house rule), and have no employees beyond the prostitute themself (the living off the avails rule).

How is that in anyway different from what Yi said?

[Malthus]

They could also simply pass a law for the express purpose of outlawing prostitution on the basis that prostitution is morally wrong. Again, if there was the political will to do it.

I think you missed my point.  There is nothing simple about defining what prostitution might be without making a number of unintended social interactions illegal.  That is why, even in our most prudish history, prostitution itself was not made illegal.

Drafting a law that did not have unfortunate consequences may be difficult, but it is not impossible to draft one which could survive constitutional scrutiny.

The reason the current law could not work was that it made no sense, as people have pointed out. A straightforward prohibition may be difficult to draft, may have unfortunate consequences, and may, in fact, be a horribly bad idea in lots of ways, but it would not suffer from the same constitutional problems; the Court would, presumably, say "we think this law is a bad idea, but it is up to the gov't to make that decision".

[crazy canuck]

Drafting a law that did not have unfortunate consequences may be difficult, but it is not impossible to draft one which could survive constitutional scrutiny.

Give it a try.  I am not trying to be pedantic about this.  It was an assignment I had for a constitutional class back in the day.  I couldnt come up with something that wouldnt be struck down as being overly broad or that wouldnt infringe on a persons ability to date...

That was the lesson the prof wanted us to learn

[Malthus]

They may wind up doing that (which means Yi - I will decline your bet), but I think the downside risk of doing nothing is a lot bigger than Malthus does.

I suspect the political calculus looks like this.

There are two groups in society that care deeply that 'prostitution be illegal' (never mind the quibble that prostitution itself was never illegal here, merely soliciting, etc.): (1) a faction of conservatives who find it morally offensive; and (2) a faction of feminists who find it morally offensive, albeit for slightly different reasons.

Group 1 will generally vote Conservative no matter what, and group (2) will generally NEVER vote Conservative no matter what.

Therefore, there is no reason for Harper to care about this issue.