[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

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"?

No Fraud is very well understood.  Your concept of some kind of relationship which is or  is not prostitution is not well understood and impossible to define.  Again, how do you distinguish between a one night stand and your proposed law?

[Malthus]

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.

Exactly - defined by generations of case law. Not by the statute.

[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"?

No Fraud is very well understood.  Your concept of some kind of relationship which is or  is not prostitution is not well understood and impossible to define.  Again, how do you distinguish between a one night stand and your proposed law?

That's what judge-made law is for - to make those kinds of distinctions.

As the law develops, you will see a test emerging which can distingush between the two (presumably it is possible, as there *is* a difference, right?) as many, many fact situations are put through the filter.

[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.

Exactly - defined by generations of case law. Not by the statute.

But you are avoiding the issue that fraud is easy to define whereas you have yet to explain how your proposed law doesnt apply to a one night stand or how a court could objectively judge that.  Further, and more significantly a very good constutional argument can be made for criminalizing fraud.  I can think of no good argument that would withstand a section 1 analysis for criminalizing sex for fee on an initial meeting and differentiating that from sex for fee after a couple dates.

[crazy canuck]

As the law develops, you will see a test emerging which can distingush between the two (presumably it is possible, as there *is* a difference, right?) as many, many fact situations are put through the filter.

The law needs to develop on a rational basis. You still need to set out some rational reasoning for why your proposed law makes sense and how it might be applied.  Jacob was quite right.  Your proposed law would not pass its first constitutional challenge for vagueness.

[Malthus]

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.

Exactly - defined by generations of case law. Not by the statute.

But you are avoiding the issue that fraud is easy to define whereas you have yet to explain how your proposed law doesnt apply to a one night stand or how a court could objectively judge that.  Further, and more significantly a very good constutional argument can be made for criminalizing fraud.  I can think of no good argument that would withstand a section 1 analysis for criminalizing sex for fee on an initial meeting and differentiating that from sex for fee after a couple dates.

What, not satified with making me draft the statute, you are insisting that I write all the case law, too? 

Anyway, "fraud" is by no means "easy to define" (see: "badges of fraud")

[Barrister]

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.

"colour of right" is not at all well-defined.  Fraud is only slightly better.

[Admiral Yi]

Colour of right is barely English.

[Josephus]

Time to leave...the lawyer debate has started.

[Barrister]

[crazy canuck]

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.

To turn this back into something Josephus will find more entertaining, I think you have in mind that almost all women may become pregnant but that very few will become prostitutes.  I think you underestimate our recent experience here in BC.  We have just gone through the Pickton inquiry looking at how the justice system utterly failed the prostitutes Pickton killed.  Many people, at least in this community, have developed a fairly strong view that the vulnerable women in our community need more protection.  I dont think it is a stretch to imagine that if Parliament enacts laws which essentially put prostitutes back in the same position there will be a strong adverse reaction - at least from this Province.

[Neil]

I suggest we appoint Neilist judges.

[Jacob]

I suggest we appoint Neilist judges.

That is unlikely to happen as long as you are limited to suggesting.

[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.

To turn this back into something Josephus will find more entertaining, I think you have in mind that almost all women may become pregnant but that very few will become prostitutes.  I think you underestimate our recent experience here in BC.  We have just gone through the Pickton inquiry looking at how the justice system utterly failed the prostitutes Pickton killed.  Many people, at least in this community, have developed a fairly strong view that the vulnerable women in our community need more protection.  I dont think it is a stretch to imagine that if Parliament enacts laws which essentially put prostitutes back in the same position there will be a strong adverse reaction - at least from this Province.

But what if we follow the Swedish model? It's all about protecting vulnerable women, but without legitimizing prostitution.

[Neil]

I suggest we appoint Neilist judges.

That is unlikely to happen as long as you are limited to suggesting.

So... are you advocating that I use political violence to create a more orderly, fairer world?