Yesterday, a Toronto judge struck down as unconstitutional three laws which many Canadians regarded as the key legislation against prostitution.
I have been rather preoccupied in publishing the responses Ottawa Municipal election candidates have sent me as an answer to the questions I asked them (it took me about 50 hours to develop the list of questions itself – I was not about to slack off on posting any and all responses I got to it!!!). As such, I have not really had much of a chance to see the reactions to the ruling….. In other words, my ‘take’ on it is not influenced by having noted any of the reactions to it ‘out there’!
Well, the government which governs the least, governs the best!
The legal situation, as it was before this ruling, was ridiculous beyond belief!
The logic – if one can call it that – of the laws surrounding ‘prostitution’ in Ontario was so twisted, it is about time they were struck down!
‘Prostitution’ itself was not illegal in Canada. Perhaps it was because even the lawmakers understood that their jurisdiction does not extend to governing our bodies (OK – they still need to figure this out with respect to what I choose to put inside it, from sugar or salt of hydrogenated oils to any other chemical compound), perhaps there is something else – I am simply not legally informed enough to know this. The fact remains that Ontario had no law which made ‘prostitution’ ‘illegal’.
However, there was a catch….
There were three laws which made it illegal to:
- enter into a contract regarding prostitution (solicitation)
- to accept, as payment, money earned through prostitution (living off the avails of prostitution)
- to practice prostitution indoors (operate a house of prostitution)
Yes, for many people whose religious beliefs condemn prostitution, the term is highly charged. If so, I would like to invite you to simply replace the term with something which will permit you to evaluate the legal situation more impartially.
Again, I stress that this is NOT to be an evaluation of ‘prostitution’: only of the legal mess ‘governing’ it. These are two separate matters. One is a matter of morality – something each person should arrive at their own conclusions about. The other is the quality (or lack thereof) of laws Ontario and Canada have on this activity.
This ‘exercise’ is only meant to address the laws themselves – not the practice they address.
So, we have:
- an activity which is not illegal
BUT
- entering into a legal contract regarding this legal activity is illegal
In what world does THAT make sense?
We also have
- a perfectly legal activity
BUT
- even though it does not present any greater danger to participate in said activity indoors (like, say, storing bbq-gas-tanks would), it is illegal to have an indoor place to participate in it
D-ugh!?!?!?!
Again, this is a logically inconsistent law.
Oh, I understand the intent of it! After all, when it is -40 degrees outside, being forced to perform sexual acts outdoors tends to shrink the practice….
But that is, at best, a dishonest law! The lawmakers knew they could not get away with outlawing the practice, as it would breech a person’s inherent rights to do with their own body as they please, so they try to slime their way out of it!!! Shame on them!
And, perhaps most ridiculously, we have
- a perfectly legal activity to earn income
BUT
- it is illegal to spend any money earned this way AND it is illegal for a person to accept, as payment for services rendered, any money earned through this activity by their customer
In other words, if a prostitute hired a book-keeper, and this book-keeper accepted (as payment for her/his services in providing bookkeeping) money that their client earned through prostitution, it is the book-keeper who had committed an illegal act!
Of course, book-keepers are not the only ones who could be criminally charged not because of anything THEY did themselves, but because their clients earned their money through one specific – perfectly legal – activity!!!
If a prostitute had a cleaning-lady, the cleaning-lady (or cleaning-gentleman: I once knew a couple who earned their living this way together, so I want to make sure to be inclusive here), this person could ALSO be facing criminal charges. NOT for something he or she did – but because of the specific legal way their boss earned the money he or she paid them with.
Same goes for cooks, babysitters, body-guards, hairdressers, or any other service provider. WHAT they did was irrelevant. HOW their client earned their money could make them face criminal charges!
THOSE WERE BAD LAWS!!!
(…and that is using very mild language….)
Aside: Please, remember ‘Xanthippa’s First Law of Human Dynamics’ – each and every law (or rule) WILL, eventually, be applied to its maximum potential illogical extreme!
Under these laws, a lawyer who was hired to represent a bank-robber – and was paid with illegally acquired money – would NOT be breaking the laws…..but a lawyer hired by a prostitute and paid with LEGALLY EARNED money COULD face criminal charges!!!!
However you look at it, these laws were in serious need of being struck down.
So, what about the morality of prostitution?
What does THAT matter?!?!?!?
Governments must NEVER be permitted to legislate MORALITY!!!!
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 