Madame deSade

It has been just over a week since the Canadian judicial decision striking down our laws restricting prostitution, a legal occupation. I am one of the three plaintiffs. The proceedings lasted almost 3 years, with thousands of pages of evidence, many weeks of closed testimony from dozens of experts and 9 days of public argument. The 131 page decision took the judge almost a year to prepare. But the federal government announced an appeal within hours of its release.

Politics, not prostitution, is the world's oldest profession. It was in all probability the Prime Minister, without even having the time to read the decision, who decided to appeal it. His justice minister is a transient name and face between cabinet shuffles. His party never draws a breath unless he signs off first. It must have been the Prime Ministers decision.

The appeal process may take years. If the government wins each appeal, prostitution will remain legal yet the law will criminalize those who are involved. The Prime Minister will have preserved a status quo that nobody understands, few obey, that is rewarding organized crime, that responds to stiffer penalties with more recruits and that puts the vulnerable at risk. All this while he has a comprehensive constitutional judicial ruling as proof that the laws need to change. I am not even talking about which direction that change should take. I am simply talking about Parliament finally getting around to making decisions.

The people want Parliament to act. If the status quo remains intact, Canada will become a laughing stock. The polls on this that I have read or heard reports about generally indicate that 75% of the people asked approved of the judges decision. The rest are split between not approving and having no position. Almost everyone dislikes the status quo, whatever their views on prostitution. Some charges have already been dropped.

I have also read and listened very carefully to the views of those who were opposed to the judges action in striking down the laws. To me it seemed that few of those people have read the decision. And if they did read it they failed to tell their readers or listeners that every objection to striking the laws that we have heard these last days received a detailed analysis in the decision. The judge explained why the current laws are wrong no matter what your values or your views on prostitution.

The judge relied on proof. The government legal team, despite their vast budget, did not have the evidence that the laws were constitutional. Professor Young and his team of students and experts had the evidence that the laws were unconstitutional. I think that we all understand that the word unconstitutional is a code-word for wrong.

Those who think that a judge should not have been the one to decide the issue of whether the laws are constitutional should remember that the Prime Minister has just enlisted more judges via appeal. He had the alternative of not doing so and instead taking his position before Parliament and the people. I am not as concerned about what the specifics of his position may turn out to be, as I am about his willingness to keep things the way they are - even as an interim measure. That is bad government.

Terri-Jean Bedford

Historic Court Case

Canada's prostitution laws were struck down in Ontario on September 28, 2010. In a 131 page decision the judge said, "I declare that the bawdy-house provision, the living on the avails of prostitution provision, and the communication provision... are unconstitutional... and to strike the word 'prostitution' from the definition of 'common bawdy-house'". The judge also said that the laws, "... are not in accord with the principals of fundamental justice and must be struck down".

Case Background

I am a plaintiff in a court test of Canada's bawdy-house laws. This law suit against the Federal Government has been proceeding for almost three years. The decision was released on September 28th, 2010. Professor Alan Young, a very prominent Canadian lawyer and Professor of Law at Osgoode Hall York University, heads the legal team for the three plaintiffs. The case was heard by Judge Susan Himel of the Ontario superior Court.