Legalized Prostitution

[GO!!!]

...possible and persecute those who use/aid it.

I disagree with this completely.

Why not address the johns as "addicts" and send them for treatment for the "lifestyle" they have run afoul of?

Sex addiction is as well documented as any other, why should it's victims be persecuted?

 

[Guy. E]

I spend lots of money a year on gas for my vehicles. Not only do I spend A LOT on it but all the gas I buy goes in to green house gases and global warming intern killing several species of animals and causing tropical storms that kill more people. Better lock me up.

Your argument isn’t that strong. There are people addicted to gardening, that’s good for you right? Last time I checked sex was great exercise.

What’s so bad about legal prostitution in the first place? It works in Las Vegas and Europe. Or is the problem most of North America is tight assed prudes?

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Because almost every male politician is likely married, and if you are the guy who is going to spearhead this one not only will you take a pounding from the religious and special interest groups, but when you go home you are going to also be walking into a feces storm. 
"Hi baby, I'm home"
"Oh, it's the right honourable member from Amsterdam.  How was your busy day fighting for the sluts Mr. Whormonger, HMMM?".  (Just not the same if Sam Kinison can't be saying it).  :blotto:

 

[GO!!!]

"Oh, it's the right honourable member from Amsterdam.  How was your busy day fighting for the sluts Mr. Whormonger, HMMM?". 

Once polygamy is made legal in Canada, I'll have my other wives sort her out.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Hah.  Or they'll all gang up on you, and when it comes to the settlement, you will end up with one fifth of your stuff instead of the traditional half.

 

[GO!!!]

Hah.  Or they'll all gang up on you, and when it comes to the settlement, you will end up with one fifth of your stuff instead of the traditional half.

Hah.

Ever heard of the "rule of thumb"?

>

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Hah.

Ever heard of the "rule of thumb"?

>

Of course...and I think that brings our mini hijack back around to mistreated women.  Woohoo!  Posting at night rocks!

 

[TCBF]

"Just not the same if Sam Kinison can't be saying it"

- You are, Sir, a true konnaysoor of humour.  The world needs more Sam Kinison - A grossly misunderstood man: "YOU LIVE IN A *&%$**!# DESERT!"

Tom

 

[zipperhead_cop]

"Just not the same if Sam Kinison can't be saying it"

- You are, Sir, a true konnaysoor of humour.  The world needs more Sam Kinison - A grossly misunderstood man: "YOU LIVE IN A *&%$**!# DESERT!"

Tom

"Get your kids, get your shit, we'll make one trip!!  We have deserts in America, we just don't live in them A$$HOLE"

 

[zipperhead_cop]

FYI, just located this article of one of our local a$$hats.  Sadly, this story is not even close to being unique:

Thief jailed for 53rd offence 

Sarah Sacheli, Windsor Star
Published: Friday, March 03, 2006
One of Windsor's most prolific thieves was sentenced to three years in prison Thursday for his latest of 53 convictions.

Donald Meloche, 36, had been out of jail for just four days when he was caught Aug. 10 breaking into a Brock Street home. Given the standard two-for-one credit for the 71/2 months he has spent in jail, Meloche was sentenced to an additional 23 months, to be served in a federal penitentiary.

"I don't see too many mitigating factors here," said Ontario court Justice Harry Momotiuk, noting Meloche's long criminal record dating back to 1985, with multiple entries for every year since.

ON PROBATION

Before Thursday's convictions for break-and- enter and theft, Meloche had 51 prior convictions, most of them for similar property crimes. Most were committed while he was on probation for other thefts. One was for a theft he committed while serving a sentence in Windsor Jail.

When his lawyer noted that in the latest break-and-enter all the property was recovered, Momotiuk interjected that that was because Meloche and his accomplice were caught by police leaving the scene. Meloche was spotted carrying a bag of stolen items including an amplifier, DVDs and cordless telephones. "He dropped the bag and ran," Momotiuk said.

Momotiuk dismissed as "talk" much of what Meloche told a probation officer who prepared a report to be considered at sentencing.

Holding up a sheaf of papers listing Meloche's prior convictions, Momotiuk said, "I can't ignore this."

The report noted Meloche has a cocaine addiction, which he managed to keep hidden from his girlfriend.

"I'm trying to get my life straight. It's not just talk," Meloche told Momotiuk.

The three-year sentence is the harshest Meloche has been dealt to date. His last conviction for a break-and-enter netted him a two-year jail term.

His accomplice in the August theft, Michael Desrosiers, 46, was sentenced in September to 21/2 years in prison.

Windsor police Staff Sgt. Ed McNorton said "habitual offenders" like Meloche need to be dealt with severely by the courts.

"The repeat offenders are a big issue for us," he said. Police have conducted sweeps in the past, monitoring and arresting known burglars. "When they're in custody, our crime stats go down."

Many are drug users, stealing to finance their addictions. Others are career thieves who steal as a source of income.

http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=10aee3b0-be1b-4bb4-a161-2a47c7143bb1&rfp=dta

Even more obnoxious, since most of the convictions of this tool are for breaking into peoples homes:

Criminal Code of Canada

348. (1) Every one who

(a) breaks and enters a place with intent to commit an indictable offence therein,

(b) breaks and enters a place and commits an indictable offence therein, or

(c) breaks out of a place after

(i) committing an indictable offence therein, or

(ii) entering the place with intent to commit an indictable offence therein,

is guilty

(d) if the offence is committed in relation to a dwelling-house, of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life, and

(e) if the offence is committed in relation to a place other than a dwelling-house, of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or of an offence punishable on summary conviction

And by the way "Meloche was sentenced to an additional 23 months, to be served in a federal penitentiary" means he will only do an actual year in jail.  What do you think he will do once he is released?  Right, go work for the Salvation Army and be "rehabilitated" by our excellent system that didn't subject him to the trauma of "marginalization" and "labelling". 
(I again re-itterate the need for a [scarcasm] smiley)

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

A year?  Sorry, if its Fed time, he will probably do less than that......

 

[zipperhead_cop]

A year?   Sorry, if its Fed time, he will probably do less than that......

Thanks for bursting my already cynical bubble... :crybaby:

 

[The_Falcon]

Apparently they needed to release this decision before Christmas and New Years, but the SCC had upheld the lower court rulings, and struck down the bulk of Canada's prostitution laws.  They are giving Parliament 1 year to rewrite new laws.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2013/12/20131220-094832.html

OTTAWA - In a sweeping decision, the Supreme Court of Canada has struck down all of the long-standing Criminal Code provisions dealing with prostitution.

In a unanimous decision, the justices found that the bans on brothels, communicating for the purposes of prostitution and living off its avails violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because they endanger hookers' lives.

"It makes no difference that the conduct of pimps and johns is the immediate source of the harms suffered by prostitutes," wrote Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin in the judgment. "The impugned laws deprive people engaged in risky, but legal, activity of the means to protect themselves against those risks."

The ruling is suspended for a year, giving Parliament time to re-write Canada's prostitution laws.

"It will be for Parliament, should it choose to do so, to devise a new approach," wrote McLachlin. "How prostitution is regulated is a matter of great public concern, and few countries leave it unregulated."

The decision hands a victory to a team of three women, including Terri Jean Bedford who has said she wants to open a brothel that specializes in painful or humiliating sexual encounters.

They challenged the prostitution laws, arguing that hookers are safest when they can hire security guards and work indoor

 

[Navy_Pete]

Their reasoning makes sense; you can't say doing something is legal, then make the all the related activities illegal.  They can either go and make the whole thing illegal, or stick with the SCC ruling and tax it.

Basically poop or get off the pot; now Parliment will actually have to make a decision!  Should be entertaining.

 

[FJAG]

Decision is at link:

http://scc-csc.lexum.com/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13389/index.do

This is a very well reasoned decision supported by a full court which will give the current government something to think about. To this point the Feds have argued that the prostitution laws as set out are to prevent harm to the communities and to vulnerable women.

The courts have shown that the laws are far too broad for the purpose of controlling the "nuisance" of prostitution and as far as vulnerability is concerned the laws in fact make prostitution less safe for women who are already at risk.

The fact is that since confederation, prostitution itself has been legal in Canada.

The choices for the Feds therefore are:

1. make prostitution itself illegal. That undoubtedly will not get rid of the issue but simply make things even worse for those women who practice it and will create an even greater number of women stigmatized by a criminal record; or

2. get serious and write laws that control prostitution in such a way as to increase safety and health for its participants, punish those who exploit women in the business while allowing others to become co-workers (drivers, security, schedulers) without risk of criminality and permit controlled, safe places where it can be practised without being a public nuisance.

While I'm generally a Conservatives supporter, I just haven't seen any good and balanced legislation coming out of the Dept of Justice for quite some time. Everything seems to be extreme and designed to increase police powers to intrude into private affairs. I have my doubts that they'll get this one right.

:subbies:

 

[DBA]

The 'University student' is an old con used to extract more money from clients. In Germany students pay no or very little tuition - sometimes just ~100 Euros a semester in combined enrolment and administration fees.

The main problem I see with legalized prostitution is demand increases on the male side but society still stigmatizes the profession so supply is limited due to few women willingly entering the profession. The supply is usually then increased with less than willing women and girls.

Like all cash businesses paid taxes are likely to be low as reported revenue is often far less than actual revenue.

 

[The_Falcon]

Like all cash businesses paid taxes are likely to be low as reported revenue is often far less than actual revenue.

Typing on an iPad so trying to keep my response short, but in regards to this, in Nevada and Australia, the girls working in the brothels pay their taxes, since they are licenced and known to the government, despite it being a cash business.  I would imagine that it's better to pay up, rather than face an audit and/or prison time for tax evasion, since the government is aware of the income source.

 

[DBA]

Typing on an iPad so trying to keep my response short, but in regards to this, in Nevada and Australia, the girls working in the brothels pay their taxes, since they are licenced and known to the government, despite it being a cash business.  I would imagine that it's better to pay up, rather than face an audit and/or prison time for tax evasion, since the government is aware of the income source.

There are 19 brothels in Nevada in which an insignificant number of the total sex workers in the state conduct business. Most offer the product closer to consumers - bars, casinos, strip clubs, street corners and hotels. I don't have the numbers for Australia but they are likely to be comparable. That low number does have to be considered in light of that fact state officials estimate there are some 30,000 sex workers just in Las Vegas, where prostitution remains illegal and brothel owners elsewhere commonly take a 50% cut. Brothels aren't really an option for most.

 

[The_Falcon]

There are 19 brothels in Nevada in which an insignificant number of the total sex workers in the state conduct business. Most offer the product closer to consumers - bars, casinos, strip clubs, street corners and hotels. I don't have the numbers for Australia but they are likely to be comparable. That low number does have to be considered in light of that fact state officials estimate there are some 30,000 sex workers just in Las Vegas, where prostitution remains illegal and brothel owners elsewhere commonly take a 50% cut. Brothels aren't really an option for most.

Option or not, people still make the treks out to them, and the ladies inside manage to make a fair bit of coin and pay taxes on that income, which is what I was refuting.  The government still gets it's cut through licensing and taxes.  Also the 30,000 number, the keyword with your statement is "estimate".  Unless those reports and/or you have some solid details as to how those numbers were ascertained (aside from pulling it out of thin air as government officials are prone to doing), you might want to refrain from posting such information.

 

[Haletown]

Legalize it.

Setup a Crown Corporation modelled on the post office to deliver the service.

Get CUPE to organize the labor force with full seniority rights.


Problem solved, social obligations met, worker's rights respected.