this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2024
53 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

7567 readers
944 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


πŸ’΅ Finance, Shopping, Sales


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

How did this end up in Canada's Constitutional Charter of Rights and Freedoms: "Parliament has the power to regulate against nuisances, but not at the cost of the health, safety and lives of the prostitutes."

##Not Prude I promise

all 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

That isn't in our charter. That was statement made by a Judge on the Supreme Court.

Source: The Charter of Rights and Freedoms - the word prostitute doesn't appear anywhere.

[–] ImplyingImplications 18 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What is in the Charter is the right to safety and that seems to be what the defendants are arguing. That the prohibition is creating a safety issue and is therefore a Charter violation.

[–] n7gifmdn 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

/u/[email protected] /u/[email protected] THANKS FOR THE CLARIFICATION!

[–] a9249 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Regulate and legalize it. Collect taxes from it. You're not going to stop the worlds oldest industry; just force it underground.

[–] n7gifmdn -3 points 2 months ago

Regulate...Collect taxes

Two wrongs don't' make a right.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

Finally! All of this could have been avoided if when it gave its remedy, the court actually cared to assess if PCEPA was an acceptable replacement to what was struck down in Bedford. Like the court said "you have six months to pass new legislation", the Harper government just reintroduced the restrictions that the court struck down, and then the court went "ehh we can just look at it in a decade or so once it bubbles up from the lower courts"