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
You must log in or register to comment.
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.
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.
/u/[email protected] /u/[email protected] THANKS FOR THE CLARIFICATION!
deleted by creator
Regulate and legalize it. Collect taxes from it. You’re not going to stop the worlds oldest industry; just force it underground.
Regulate…Collect taxes
Two wrongs don’t’ make a right.
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”
