[325] For the reasons set out above, we declare that ss. 210 and 212(1)(j) of the Criminal Code are unconstitutional.
[326] To remedy the constitutional problem posed by s. 210, we strike the word “prostitution” from the definition of “common bawdy-house” in s. 197(1) as it applies to s. 210. We suspend this declaration of invalidity for 12 months to give Parliament an opportunity to draft a Charter-compliant bawdy-house provision, should it elect to do so.
[327] To remedy the constitutional problem posed by s. 212(1)(j), we read in words of limitation to clarify that the prohibition on living on the avails of prostitution applies only to those who do so “in circumstances of exploitation”.
[328] We conclude that the communicating provision in s. 213(1)(c) does not offend the principles of fundamental justice. Accordingly, it does not infringe the respondents’ s. 7 Charter rights. We further conclude that the application judge was bound by the Prostitution Reference to hold that s. 213(1)(c) is a reasonable limit on the right to freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter. We allow the appeal on these issues.
[329] The stay of the application judge’s decision is extended for 30 days from the date of the release of these reasons so that all parties can consider their positions. The practical effect is:
· The declaration of invalidity in respect of the bawdy-house provisions is suspended for one year from the date of the release of these reasons.
· The amended living on the avails provision takes effect 30 days from the date of the release of these reasons.
· The communicating provision remains in full force.
[330] We thank all counsel, including counsel for the interveners, for their thorough and thoughtful submissions. This is not a case for costs.
Signed: “Doherty J.A.”
“M. Rosenberg J.A.”
“K. Feldman J.A."
I am no fan of the exploitation of women but neither do I believe that no woman can choose to sell sex without coercion and exploitation. No, I wouldn't choose this career for my daughter but then a lot of people would object to her joining the army or becoming a lawyer. It is HER choice. If she did decide to take up prostitution I would want her to do so in the safest environment possible, with the support of other prostitutes and with the ability to employ security, financial and HR staff, and even be employed by a company that facilitates those support functions. I am happy that women, and men by the way, have choices.
It's funny how the Feminists and the religious right agree on this one, though. At least the religious right is consistent in their moral objection. How does a feminist who insists on a woman's right to choose justify opposing this?
2 comments:
As a male feminist, it seems that validating prostitution undoubtedly contributes to further coercion and exploitation of all women. Activities like prostitution, strip clubs, and pornography create this perception that women are objects. The fact that it exists implies to society that we tolerate such objectification. I understand the dangers of utilitarianism, but in the case of women, it deserves our attention at least to uphold the integrity and dignity of all women at the expense of the "rights" of some women, who ultimately contribute to the objectification of all women.
Just as an FYI, I am not one of those religious radicals who thinks prostitution is immoral. This is about how certain activities are degrading half of our population.
Just food for thought :) It's always better to challenge the status quo :P
I understand your points but as a mostly libertarian I just don't buy group rights. Dignity isn't a right nor is integrity. I would argue that the rights of each individual woman to decide for herself if selling sex (I think it is inflammatory to say she is selling her body), or images of herself, or her time should not be infringed because of a nebulous group right. I would even argue that treating all women as a homogenous group is degrading and I would point to the existence of lesbian porn as one example.
Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts on the matter.
Post a Comment