[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

I suspect a lot of people do not want to see streetwalkers and freely operating brothels in Canada.

And Malthus - your Group 1 not only votes conservative, they donate lots of money and they volunteer.  They can always sit on their hands and wallets.

[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 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.

I think that is correct.

The problem with the Reformers is that they followed the kinds of advice BB is giving - no surprise since BB was himself a Reformer.  Harper has yet to fall into that trap.

[Malthus]

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

I don't get the difficulty.

I'm no legislative draftsperson, but how about something like:

"Whereas it is in the public interest to prevent immorality, and parliament has deemed that the act of having sex in return for money alone without any concomitant social relationship immoral, parliament hereby passes the following amendment to the Criminal Code:

[section number] A person is guilty of prostitution when such person engages or agrees or offers to engage in sexual conduct with another person in return for a fee alone.

[section number] A person guilty of prostitution shall be subject to [penalty]."

Then, leave it up to the courts to determine what does, or does not, constitute a "fee". Given the legislative purpose, and the need to construe criminal legislation strictly in favour of the accused, it seems workable to me that you would get a law that caught blowjobs-in-alleys-for-crack-money, but not dating.   

[Malthus]

I suspect a lot of people do not want to see streetwalkers and freely operating brothels in Canada.

And Malthus - your Group 1 not only votes conservative, they donate lots of money and they volunteer.  They can always sit on their hands and wallets.

Abortion was a much more motivating and divisive issue that prostitution - and Harper basically did squat when THAT law was struck down.

My guess is that he thinks conservatives will support him, even if he pisses them off by not passing legislation.

[Malthus]

I think that is correct.

The problem with the Reformers is that they followed the kinds of advice BB is giving - no surprise since BB was himself a Reformer.  Harper has yet to fall into that trap.

Harper is a successful politician first and a conservative a distant second.

[Josephus]

I think that is correct.

The problem with the Reformers is that they followed the kinds of advice BB is giving - no surprise since BB was himself a Reformer.  Harper has yet to fall into that trap.

Harper is a successful politician first and a conservative a distant second.

In that he is like most politicians. (not a dig against him). Once elected the role of a politician is to make sure he gets elected again.

[crazy canuck]

[section number] A person is guilty of prostitution when such person engages or agrees or offers to engage in sexual conduct with another person in return for a fee alone.

I agree, that is the most obvious choice.  But now think about its efficacy.  What does fee mean?  Does it mean paying for a movie, does it mean paying for diner, does it mean buying gifts etc etc etc.  I am not critical of using the term "fee".  It is the most reasonable term to use since specifying the kind of payments brings its own problems.  But it is the difficulty in applying it that illustrates the point nicely.

Now consider the notion of some kind of social relationship exempting the application of the provision and the difficulty of demonstrating that thereis some compelling reason demonstrably justified in a fee and democratic society as to why it is that people who have a one night stand should be treated differently from people who go on 1 date before they have sex (or however else one wants to define a sufficiently commited relationship before gifts may be exchanged and sex is had).

I could go on but you get the point.

[crazy canuck]

I think that is correct.

The problem with the Reformers is that they followed the kinds of advice BB is giving - no surprise since BB was himself a Reformer.  Harper has yet to fall into that trap.

Harper is a successful politician first and a conservative a distant second.

I think that depends on how one defines a conservative.  Right from the start Harper took the party away from the direction Reform had been heading and if he needed any reminders that was the correct thing to do he only needed to wait for the first federal election after he became leader when the left over Reformers blew the election for him when they started talking about making abortion illegal.

He learned that lesson well.  I dont think he will forget it.

[Jacob]

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

I don't get the difficulty.

I'm no legislative draftsperson, but how about something like:

"Whereas it is in the public interest to prevent immorality, and parliament has deemed that the act of having sex in return for money alone without any concomitant social relationship immoral, parliament hereby passes the following amendment to the Criminal Code:

[section number] A person is guilty of prostitution when such person engages or agrees or offers to engage in sexual conduct with another person in return for a fee alone.

[section number] A person guilty of prostitution shall be subject to [penalty]."

Then, leave it up to the courts to determine what does, or does not, constitute a "fee". Given the legislative purpose, and the need to construe criminal legislation strictly in favour of the accused, it seems workable to me that you would get a law that caught blowjobs-in-alleys-for-crack-money, but not dating.   

That seems to go down the route of "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it."

I'm not a lawyer, but I thought laws that relied on that kind of judgement were not well thought of.

[Barrister]

I suspect a lot of people do not want to see streetwalkers and freely operating brothels in Canada.

And Malthus - your Group 1 not only votes conservative, they donate lots of money and they volunteer.  They can always sit on their hands and wallets.

Abortion was a much more motivating and divisive issue that prostitution - and Harper basically did squat when THAT law was struck down.

My guess is that he thinks conservatives will support him, even if he pisses them off by not passing legislation.

BUt I think that's it - abortion was divisive, whereas prostitution is not.  There's no real constituency lobbying in favour of legallized prostitution.

[Malthus]

[section number] A person is guilty of prostitution when such person engages or agrees or offers to engage in sexual conduct with another person in return for a fee alone.

I agree, that is the most obvious choice.  But now think about its efficacy.  What does fee mean?  Does it mean paying for a movie, does it mean paying for diner, does it mean buying gifts etc etc etc.  I am not critical of using the term "fee".  It is the most reasonable term to use since specifying the kind of payments brings its own problems.  But it is the difficulty in applying it that illustrates the point nicely.

Now consider the notion of some kind of social relationship exempting the application of the provision and the difficulty of demonstrating that thereis some compelling reason demonstrably justified in a fee and democratic society as to why it is that people who have a one night stand should be treated differently from people who go on 1 date before they have sex (or however else one wants to define a sufficiently commited relationship before gifts may be exchanged and sex is had).

I could go on but you get the point.

What about the crime of theft?

322. (1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent

(a) to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it;

(b) to pledge it or deposit it as security;

(c) to part with it under a condition with respect to its return that the person who parts with it may be unable to perform; or

(d) to deal with it in such a manner that it cannot be restored in the condition in which it was at the time it was taken or converted.

What is all this "fraudulently and without colour of right" stuff? Totally undefined.   

[Malthus]

That seems to go down the route of "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it."

I'm not a lawyer, but I thought laws that relied on that kind of judgement were not well thought of.

See above re theft. Isn't that "fraudulently and without colour of right" stuff more or less "I can't exactly say why one taking is theft and another isn't, but know it when I see it"? 

[Barrister]

And if we have to get into a "colour of right" defense it turns into a total mess in court.

[Jacob]

See above re theft. Isn't that "fraudulently and without colour of right" stuff more or less "I can't exactly say why one taking is theft and another isn't, but know it when I see it"?

Totally not going to argue about law stuff with you 

[crazy canuck]

What is all this "fraudulently and without colour of right" stuff? Totally undefined.

I am not sure what you are getting at.  "Fraud" and "colour or right" are well defined in our law.  Fee for sex is not.