Canada Supreme Court Strikes Down All Current Restrictions on Prostitution

[happyslug]

120. Here is the Actual Opinion, First it acknowledges that Prostitution is NOT illegal in Canada

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

First thing the court notes is that it is NOT illegal to sell sex for money i.e. Prostitution is LEGAL in Canada.

The judgment of the Court was delivered by

The Chief Justice —

[1] It is not a crime in Canada to sell sex for money. However, it is a crime to keep a bawdy-house, to live on the avails of prostitution or to communicate in public with respect to a proposed act of prostitution. It is argued that these restrictions on prostitution put the safety and lives of prostitutes at risk, and are therefore unconstitutional.

[2] These appeals and the cross-appeal are not about whether prostitution should be legal or not. They are about whether the laws Parliament has enacted on how prostitution may be carried out pass constitutional muster. I conclude that they do not. I would therefore make a suspended declaration of invalidity, returning the question of how to deal with prostitution to Parliament.

However, prostitution itself is not illegal. It is not against the law to exchange sex for money. Under the existing regime, Parliament has confined lawful prostitution to two categories: street prostitution and “out-calls” — where the prostitute goes out and meets the client at a designated location, such as the client’s home. This reflects a policy choice on Parliament’s part. Parliament is not precluded from imposing limits on where and how prostitution may be conducted, as long as it does so in a way that does not infringe the constitutional rights of prostitutes.

The Court held that its decision shall be suspended for one year:

On the one hand, immediate invalidity would leave prostitution totally unregulated while Parliament grapples with the complex and sensitive problem of how to deal with it. How prostitution is regulated is a matter of great public concern, and few countries leave it entirely unregulated. Whether immediate invalidity would pose a danger to the public or imperil the rule of law (the factors for suspension referred to in Schachter v. Canada, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679) may be subject to debate. However, it is clear that moving abruptly from a situation where prostitution is regulated to a situation where it is entirely unregulated would be a matter of great concern to many Canadians.

[168] On the other hand, leaving the prohibitions against bawdy-houses, living on the avails of prostitution and public communication for purposes of prostitution in place in their present form leaves prostitutes at increased risk for the time of the suspension — risks which violate their constitutional right to security of the person.

[169] The choice between suspending the declaration of invalidity and allowing it to take immediate effect is not an easy one. Neither alternative is without difficulty. However, considering all the interests at stake, I conclude that the declaration of invalidity should be suspended for one year.

In simple terms the court disliked HOW prostitution was regulated NOT that it was illegal. Basically the Canadian Parliament can do one of several things:

1. Make ALL prostitution illegal. There is NOTHING in this decision making such an option unconstitutional. The problem was some aspects of prostitution was LEGAL but others ILLEGAL and the petitioners said that difference prohibited them from seeking ways to make their choice of occupation safer.

2. Keep prostitution legal, but any house of prostitution must be registered with the Police, subject to inspection by the police at any time. Any act of violence would be grounds to close down the house (One of the laws challenged was keeping a "Brawny house&quot . Hold the owner of the house strictly liable for any injury incurred in the house by anyone.