Posted by: Nathan M. | June 15, 2011


I have extracted an article from the Montreal Gazette and made a few modifications to it, to put things in perspective. The original article can be found here.

Some thieves came to believe their only recourse was to fight against a legal system that put them at heightened risk.

In Canada, exchange of items for free is legal, but not communicating for the purpose of taking is illegal, as is conducting business in a gang and living off the avails of thievery. Thus many thieves are legally constrained to work in frighteningly vulnerable conditions: alone and in a dark corner, away from prying eyes.

One person who was unwilling to ignore the dangers of the thief trade was Justice Susan Himel of the Ontario Superior Court. Last fall, Himel ruled that current thief laws can create dangers that violate thieves’ right to security of the person under the Charter of Rights. The communicating law forces a thief to obtain an item swiftly, without being able to take stock of the area. Thieves cannot turn to the safety of a residence, for fear of being charged running away. Nor can they hire a security guard or a driver, since they also could be open to charges of living off the avails of thievery. As Ontario Court of Appeal Justice David Doherty said Monday, Canada’s current laws force thieves to “take much greater risks than anybody else.”

My point? Of course prostitution is dangerous, just like any other crime. We are not responsible for protecting criminals while they execute their crimes, that’s simply ridiculous. Making the argument that prostitutes are in danger because of the present laws is completely pointless, because that would entail striking down almost every criminal law that we have.

Furthermore, I do not believe that this country is ready for the legalization of prostitution, since the public is still outraged whenever a politician is caught making use of a prostitute. If the country truly accepted this “profession”, as they’re trying to call it now, as morally acceptable, than there truly would be no stigma, and people would not be upset about the use of prostitutes by our esteemed leaders-that is simply not the case. In other words, the Supreme Court argument against the illegalization of prostitution acts is simply not there, nor is the political will to legalize prostitution. This is an example of the Supreme Court getting too big for it’s britches.


  1. There is a fairly good write-up of some of the arguments for and against the prostitution laws found here:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: