An All Out Assault

The last couple of weeks of legislative activity in Ottawa have been distressing to say the least.  To call it an all out assault on Canada and Canadians is an understatement.

The Harper Government has been ramming through a series of legislation that comprise the single most overt attack on all that is good and reasoned in Canada.

I've already discussed my thoughts regarding Bill C-36, the Conservative response to the Bedford ruling on prostitution.  Unfortunately, what the Harper Government is ramming through is a more overt piece of legislation that makes a mess out of far more than prostitution.  It stands to make just about anything to do with sex illegal - from therapists to sex toys.

Then there is Bill C-24, which gives the Minister of Immigration rather broad powers to strip Canadians of their citizenship.  Quite rightly, a lot of Canadians are very concerned about this legislation.  This gives the politicians rather broad powers to strip people of their citizenship without any kind of real recourse in the courts.  Yes, they are talking about people who hold dual citizenship, but why on earth would we want to create an environment where there are two "grades" of citizenship?

It's been centuries since any civilized country engaged in banishing citizens who broke the local laws.

Bill C-13 is another piece of nasty legislation.  Framed in the rubric of addressing online bullying, this legislation gives the government unprecedented powers to engage in broad, invasive surveillance of Canadian citizens and their online activities.  In committee, Randall Garrison put forward an amendment which would have added gender identity to the hate crimes statutes (which are being amended by C-13).  To defeat that singular amendment, the Conservatives swapped out two CPC members on the committee who they thought might vote for it.

All of these are pieces in a larger mosaic of legislation that the Harper Government has put forth, sometimes as single issue bills, sometimes buried in the depths of omnibus "budget bills".  This government has been gradually attacking Canadian rights and freedoms at every turn.  Sometimes using subtle means, other legislation is much more blatant.

My guess is that Harper is doing all of this with an eye to wrapping up his legislative agenda (the one that he doesn't admit to) well in advance of the next election.  He's no doubt going to try and get Canadians to forget all of the legislative evilness that he has foisted upon Canadians in 2014.

Bill C-36 Analysis In Detail Part 3: Advertising

The government is playing some very subtle games with the language in C-36.  In some respects, the language is ridiculously broad (e.g. the undefined nature of "sexual services"), in other areas they are getting remarkably specific.

Advertising sexual services286.4 Everyone who knowingly advertises an offer to provide sexual services for consideration is guilty of(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months. 

Immunity — material benefit and advertising286.5 (1) No person shall be prosecuted for(a) an offence under section 286.2 if the benefit is derived from the provision of their own sexual services; or(b) an offence under section 286.4 in relation to the advertisement of their own sexual services. 

Immunity — aiding, abetting, etc.(2) No person shall be prosecuted for aiding, abetting, conspiring or attempting to commit an offence under any of sections 286.1 to 286.4 or being an accessory after the fact or counselling a person to be a party to such an offence, if the offence relates to the offering or provision of their own sexual services. 

The implication here is that a prostitute can advertise their own services, this is somewhat more generous than I had initially expected.  But, because of the other aspects of the law, this still ends up smelling like a form of entrapment.

Okay, an individual is allowed to advertise their services (so, no, your local Sun newspaper isn't likely to go bankrupt from a lack of advertisers), but you aren't, apparently, supposed to actually purchase those services:

286.1 (1) Everyone who, in any place, obtains for consideration, or communicates with anyone for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of a person is guilty of(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years and a minimum punishment of,(i) in the case where the offence is committed in a public place, or in any place open to public view, that is or is next to a park or the grounds of a school or religious institution or that is or is next to any other place where persons under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present,(A) for a first offence, a fine of $2,000, and(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $4,000, or(ii) in any other case,(A) for a first offence, a fine of $1,000, and(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $2,000; or(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months and a minimum punishment of,(i) in the case referred to in subparagraph (a)(i),(A) for a first offence, a fine of $1,000, and(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $2,000, or(ii) in any other case,(A) for a first offence, a fine of $500, and(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $1,000. 

If this smells a little fishy to you, there's a good reason for it.  It is.  In today's world of mass surveillance, how much do you think it's going to take for the government to designate any phone or email address associated with "sexual services" as something to monitor and simply start grabbing any and all traffic related to that address/phone number?  (Hint:  It isn't difficult at all, and I suspect that the "anti-bullying" bill (Bill C-26) before parliament would allow them to do so without a warrant and still use the evidence against you in a court of law)

What's the net effect of this?  Fundamentally, it means that although someone can advertise sexual services, anybody "procuring" those services is subject to significant criminal penalties.  Under the surveillance capabilities today, it's almost impossible not to have any "communication for procurement" to be monitored except in isolated, private places.  In other words, creepy places where the "johns" can assert control and dominance through violence or the threat of it.

Because of the undefined (and therefore, presumably broad) wording of "sexual services", I wonder how this will play out for sex shops, BDSM dungeons and other businesses which cater to various sexual appetites that aren't necessarily prostitution per se.  Because a lot of those exist as legal businesses, separate from their owners and with employees, one is left wondering just how it is that those businesses will be able to advertise themselves without the owners being charged under these laws?

While I'm sure that this will make people like MP Joy Smith ecstatically happy, driving sex underground doesn't really solve any of the issues associated with prostitution as identified in Bedford.  (Ms. Smith is the same twit who wants to block all porn on Canada's internet)  There are aspects of this legislation which certainly start to create a blanket ban on any and all sexuality, and in particular the discussion of that sexuality.  These blanket proscriptions create interesting problems not only for prostitutes, but for others who are working in the sex industry, or work with sexual minorities of one sort or another for any reason.

One thing we already know from experience is that driving it underground won't address the very real and legitimate safety and security of the person issues that the Bedford decision raises.

Bill C-36 Analysis In Detail Part 2

Bill C-36 casts a much wider net than I had first thought.

Traditionally, when a term is being used to define an offence, a definition of that term is inserted in S2 of the Criminal Code which gives a clear, understandable definition.  

Throughout the text of Bill C-36, the term "Sexual Services" is used constantly, but at no time is the term defined at all.  It is used, but never really nailed down.

For example, does C-36 place a BDSM "dungeon" under the concept of Sexual Services?  Or, for that matter, depending on how one looks at it, it could also encompass any number of "adult entertainment" businesses that are out there, which have traditionally sat on the edge - they are certainly offering sexual stimulus for sale, but not necessarily sex per se.

For that matter, what are the implications of offering sex toys or magazines for sale?  Or, for that matter, what about a sex therapist?  Does that constitute a "sexual service" under this law?  This is especially important when we are looking at the advertising restrictions part of this law.

“advertisement of sexual services”« publicité de services sexuels »“advertisement of sexual services” means any material — including a photographic, film, video, audio or other recording, made by any means, a visual representation or any written material — that is used to advertise sexual services contrary to section 286.4. 

...

Advertising sexual services286.4 Everyone who knowingly advertises an offer to provide sexual services for consideration is guilty of(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months.

Depending on how this is interpreted, a lot of people could end up in prison for no worse an offence than having a web site for their business.

Bill C-36: Analysis In Detail - Part I

The biggest pieces of Bill C-36 are well described elsewhere in the media, and there isn't any real surprise to it.  The Harper Government has more or less just resurrected the old environment.  

As with all such things the devil is in the details.  The odd little lines where the government changes clauses about without really talking about it.

For example, consider the following from the First Reading text:

3. Subsection 7(4.1) of the Act is amended by replacing the reference to “212(4)” with a reference to “286.1(2)”.

So, referring to the criminal code, Subsection 7(4.1) reads as follows right now:

Offence in relation to sexual offences against children
(4.1) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other Act, every one who, outside Canada, commits an act or omission that if committed in Canada would be an offence against section 151, 152, 153, 155 or 159, subsection 160(2) or (3), section 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1, 172.1, 172.2 or 173 or subsection 212(4) shall be deemed to commit that act or omission in Canada if the person who commits the act or omission is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. *emphasis added

What exactly is subsection 212(4) of the Criminal Code?  In context, in the current criminal code, S212 in general is offences related to the "procurement" of prostitute's services.  In particular 212(4) is related to underage prostitutes:

(4) Every person who, in any place, obtains for consideration, or communicates with anyone for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of a person who is under the age of eighteen years is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months.

This is being replaced with a reference to S286.1(2).  That's a fair distance away from the current Criminal Code provisions related to prostitution.  In fact, it's in a whole other part of the Criminal Code which this legislation amends.  At present, S286 reads:

286. In proceedings in respect of an offence under sections 280 to 283, it is not a defence to any charge that a young person consented to or suggested any conduct of the accused. 

Once Bill C-36 is passed, it will read:

286. In proceedings in respect of an offence under sections 280 to 283, it is not a defence to any charge that a young person consented to or suggested any conduct of the accused. 

Commodification of Sexual Activity

Obtaining sexual services for consideration 

286.1 (1) Everyone who, in any place, obtains for consideration, or communicates with anyone for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of a person is guilty of(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years and a minimum punishment of, 

(i) in the case where the offence is committed in a public place, or in any place open to public view, that is or is next to a park or the grounds of a school or religious institution or that is or is next to any other place where persons under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present,  

(A) for a first offence, a fine of $2,000, and 

(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $4,000, or

(ii) in any other case,(A) for a first offence, a fine of $1,000, and(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $2,000; or(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months and a minimum punishment of,(i) in the case referred to in subparagraph (a)(i),(A) for a first offence, a fine of $1,000, and(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $2,000, or(ii) in any other case,(A) for a first offence, a fine of $500, and(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $1,000.Obtaining sexual services for consideration from person under 18 years(2) Everyone who, in any place, obtains for consideration, or communicates with anyone for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of a person under the age of 18 years is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of(a) for a first offence, six months; and(b) for each subsequent offence, one year.Subsequent offences(3) In determining, for the purpose of subsection (2), whether a convicted person has committed a subsequent offence, if the person was earlier convicted of any of the following offences, that offence is to be considered as an earlier offence:(a) an offence under that subsection; or(b) an offence under subsection 212(4) of this Act, as it read from time to time before the day on which this subsection comes into force.Sequence of convictions only(4) In determining, for the purposes of this section, whether a convicted person has committed a subsequent offence, the only question to be considered is the sequence of convictions and no consideration shall be given to the sequence of commission of offences, whether any offence occurred before or after any conviction or whether offences were prosecuted by indictment or by way of summary conviction proceedings.Definitions of “place” and “public place”(5) For the purposes of this section, “place” and “public place” have the same meaning as in subsection 197(1).Material benefit from sexual services286.2 (1) Everyone who receives a financial or other material benefit, knowing that it is obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from the commission of an offence under subsection 286.1(1), is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.Material benefit from sexual services provided by person under 18 years(2) Everyone who receives a financial or other material benefit, knowing that it is obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from the commission of an offence under subsection 286.1(2), is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years.Presumption(3) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), evidence that a person lives with or is habitually in the company of a person who offers or provides sexual services for consideration is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that the person received a financial or other material benefit from those services.Exception(4) Subject to subsection (5), subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a person who receives the benefit(a) in the context of a legitimate living arrangement with the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived;(b) as a result of a legal or moral obligation of the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived;(c) in consideration for a service or good that they offer, on the same terms and conditions, to the general public; or(d) in consideration for a service or good that they do not offer to the general public but that they offered or provided to the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived, if they did not counsel or encourage that person to provide sexual services and the benefit is proportionate to the value of the service or good.No exception(5) Subsection (4) does not apply to a person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) if that person(a) used, threatened to use or attempted to use violence, intimidation or coercion in relation to the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived;(b) abused a position of trust, power or authority in relation to the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived;(c) provided a drug, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance to the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived for the purpose of aiding or abetting that person to offer or provide sexual services for consideration;(d) engaged in conduct, in relation to any person, that would constitute an offence under section 286.3; or(e) received the benefit in the context of a commercial enterprise that offers sexual services for consideration.Aggravating factor(6) If a person is convicted of an offence under this section, the court that imposes the sentence shall consider as an aggravating factor the fact that that person received the benefit in the context of a commercial enterprise that offers sexual services for consideration.Procuring286.3 (1) Everyone who procures a person to offer or provide sexual services for consideration or, for the purpose of facilitating an offence under subsection 286.1(1), recruits, holds, conceals or harbours a person who offers or provides sexual services for consideration, or exercises control, direction or influence over the movements of that person, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years.Procuring — person under 18 years(2) Everyone who procures a person under the age of 18 years to offer or provide sexual services for consideration or, for the purpose of facilitating an offence under subsection 286.1(2), recruits, holds, conceals or harbours a person under the age of 18 who offers or provides sexual services for consideration, or exercises control, direction or influence over the movements of that person, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of five years.Advertising sexual services286.4 Everyone who knowingly advertises an offer to provide sexual services for consideration is guilty of(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months.Immunity — material benefit and advertising286.5 (1) No person shall be prosecuted for(a) an offence under section 286.2 if the benefit is derived from the provision of their own sexual services; or(b) an offence under section 286.4 in relation to the advertisement of their own sexual services.Immunity — aiding, abetting, etc.(2) No person shall be prosecuted for aiding, abetting, conspiring or attempting to commit an offence under any of sections 286.1 to 286.4 or being an accessory after the fact or counselling a person to be a party to such an offence, if the offence relates to the offering or provision of their own sexual services. 

This is an important change, and one that is both subtle and infuriating.  Sections 280-286 deal with abduction scenarios - particularly those involving underage victims.  The government has wedged a bunch of prostitution related discussion into S286, and in doing so is implicitly arguing that prostitution is clearly and directly linked with abduction and human trafficking.

Are you concerned yet?  You should be.  The Harper Government is muddying the legal waters here considerably, and there are potentially serious consequences to these changes.  First of all, the assumption that lies under this is questionable indeed.  To assert that there is an undeniable link between underage prostitution and child abduction is questionable at best.

Further, although S280-S286 appears to largely be intended to deal with abduction of youth scenarios, the amendments to S286 appear to be broad, involving more than scenarios which involve youth, which fundamentally perverts the intended application of S286.

I suspect that in part the government's intention in burying this in S286 is to create a bit of a legal shield for this portion of their legislation.  It clearly reiterates much of what used to be covered in the previous legislation, and thus creates the same hazards for sex workers in general.  By attaching to the sections on youth abduction, the Harper Government is clearly hoping that they will be able to make the case that these provisions should stand because they are "intended to protect youth".

Not only does it provide them with a shield in court, but they can accuse any opposition amendments of "not being willing to protect children".  Which is complete nonsense, but then again, so are most of the criminal justice laws that this government has passed.

The Harper Government - Slimy.  Dishonest. Unethical.

Apparently MacKay Missed The Point ...

When the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Canada's prostitution laws last year, it did so on the basis that the existing laws placed sex workers in unreasonably dangerous situations.  

Quite appropriately, the Supreme Court gave the government a year to table new legislation.  Today, Justice Minister Peter MacKay tabled the government's response in the House of Commons.

The bill would create new offences for: 

— The purchase of sexual services and communicating in any place for that purpose. 

— Receiving a financial or material benefit from the prostitution of others, including through businesses that sell the sexual services of others online or out of venues such as escort agencies, massage parlours, or strip clubs that also provide sexual services. 

— Advertising the sale of sexual services in print media or on the Internet. 

— Communicating for the purpose of selling sexual services in public places where a child could reasonably be expected to be present.

Frankly, I'm not sure that I see any substantive difference over the old laws.  

Under the old laws, prostitution itself was legal but almost all related activities — including communicating in a public place for the purposes of prostitution, pimping and running a brothel — were criminal offences.

Eyes open.  The Harper Government has just done exactly what one might expect.  Essentially they have just returned to the old laws, and added a few new words here and there.  Particularly "clever" is the offence of "communicating for the purpose ... where a child could reasonably be expected to be present".  Gotta protect the children, donchaknow.

Of course, the government knows full well that a public place by definition is a place where children can be found.  Come to think of it, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see this same clause in the law used to effectively criminalize prostitutes who have children.  If it is "dangerous" for a child to witness a transaction being negotiated, the one might imagine that the government presumes that a child living with a prostitute parent must be in enormous danger.

Okay, you can't "communicate in a public place".  So, you go into a "coffee shop" or "club" to negotiate the deal.  Presto, that's illegal too.  If the business in question exists to facilitate such negotiations, they are subject to other clauses in the law.

Want to advertise your services?  No can do.  That's illegal too.

Once again, we see the Harper Government's inability to comprehend the finer points of constitutional law in this country.  What they have done is just re-create the same conditions that rendered the previous laws inoperative.  Now this country's sex workers face another decade or so of litigation to overturn what amounts to the same laws as were thrown out last year.  I'm sure the Harper Government has written a few clever weasel phrases into the legislation to sidestep the particulars of the criticisms of the previous laws - just enough to force further litigation before the right thing happens again.

Oh yes, the government is blathering on about "programs" to help people exit the sex trade.  Newsflash:  not everybody in that trade wants to leave it.

No, Yaakov Roth, The Supreme Court of Canada Is Not Overstepping Its Boundaries

I see the Harper PMO must have found another muppet to write opinion pieces for them.  In the National Post, we find Yaakov Roth expounding on the "problems" he has with the way the Supreme Court of Canada has been ruling on such matters as safe injection sites and prostitution.

The first thing I want to point out is that Mr. Yaakov Roth is not an expert on Canadian Constitutional Law - he was a Legal Clerk to Antonin Scalia - an American with no particular history in Canadian law.  Further, Antonin Scalia is notoriously conservative in his opinions, and it is in part from him that the entire narrative of "activist judges" started from.

On the D.C. Circuit, Scalia built a conservative record, while winning applause in legal circles for powerful, witty legal writing, which was often critical of the Supreme Court precedents he felt bound as a lower-court judge to follow. Scalia's opinions drew the attention of Reagan administration officials

Mr. Roth's arguments are very much consistent with the false narrative that any time the court rules against a set of laws the judges are being "activist".

I’ve seen my share of eyebrow-raising decisions. But using illegal drugs and publicly soliciting prostitution are, to put it mildly, not activities that come to mind when one thinks of fundamental constitutional rights. How did we get here? How did the SCC go so far off-track? 

The root of the rot, in my view, is not an erroneous legal doctrine or a misconstrued Charter provision (although there are plenty of both), but something far more basic: how the Court finds facts in Charter cases.

First of all, Mr. Roth's position presupposes that he actually understands the rulings he is talking about.  He doesn't.

In Charter cases, however, the relevant considerations often transcend the individual parties and relate more broadly to society as a whole. What are the long-term social effects of allowing prostitutes to solicit business in public? Will safe injection sites encourage increased drug use? The Supreme Court calls these “social facts,” facts about “society at large.” Shockingly, it now treats them identically to ordinary adjudicative facts. Contrary to earlier jurisprudence, Bedford expressly ruled that the trial judge is supposed to review social science, hear from purported “experts,” and make a conclusive determination that is binding on appeal unless “palpably” wrong.

Apparently, Mr. Roth has never actually read Canada's Constitution and come to an appreciation of how that document establishes a guiding framework for all aspects of this nation's government.  In particular, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms establishes a set of rights which is designed to hold in check a government which can otherwise run amok over the interests of its citizens.

Perhaps unique to having "conservative governments", the Supreme Court finds itself being put in the position of arbiter over laws and actions of governments whose overweening desire to control aspects of society that proscription has never effectively controlled.  Under Mulroney, it was the Supreme Court which struck down abortion laws in Canada - for similar reasons to the InSite and Prostitution rulings.  In all of these cases, the laws as written placed citizens into places of increased danger, at the hands of the law itself.

The InSite case was a matter of the Harper Government wanting to shut down the program, in spite of a mountain of clear evidence that it has been effective in reducing the damage done by heroin consumption in Vancouver.  There was no law struck down in that case, rather the government was effectively told that it had to abide by its own rules rather than arbitrarily imposing its political will through policy alone.

The Bedford case on prostitution is more complicated, in large part because the laws surrounding prostitution largely predate the creation of the Constitution in Canada.  Further, the awareness of the impact of those laws on prostitutes (who, I must point out are not criminals under the law), created a peculiar dynamic which ultimately placed the prostitutes in danger.

These are subtle points in law, though.  It is easy, if not silly, to claim that because parliament passed a law that it is valid.  Politicians are creatures of the moment, and prone to creating laws which are to one degree or another reactions to the pressures of the day.  Laws drafted before the 1983 Constitution Acts are very likely going to violate one or more aspects of the Constitution.  This is not a bad thing, it is simply a reality.  A law written when I was born is not guaranteed to be a meaningful law forty years later.  Understandings change, society changes (hopefully for the better), and the impact of that law changes.

In practice, this means that a single, anonymous trial judge is authorized to impose his social worldview on the entire country. In the Insite case, for example, the trial judge found as a “fact” that the social benefits of the safe injection site outweighed its costs. 

Ummm, yes, Mr. Roth.  Perhaps you should go read some of the research that has been published related to InSite.  You know, that objective stuff called evidence?  Does that constitute a "fact", or does the Harper Government's overt hostility to a program based solely on talking points and political spin constitute a stronger "fact"?  Personally, I'll take the one that has actual evidence behind it as opposed to talking points and emotional statements.

Ultimately, these cases — like most Charter cases — are about policy choices. Courts can serve as a useful check on democracy by ensuring that Parliament is using reasonable means to advance its objectives. But turning every social policy issue into a disputed “fact” to be resolved by a single judge after hearing testimony from academics is nothing but a transparent effort to substitute judges’ policy views for those of Parliament  —just what the SCC repeatedly claims not to do.

Here is where Mr. Roth drops the veil of supposedly objective analysis and plays the "activist judge" card.  Unfortunately for Mr. Roth, his entire argument falls apart on this.  There is a fascinating balance in the Canadian Constitution which he fails to understand.  The judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, is in the unique position of acting as a counterweight to the inclination of politicians to be excessive in their legislation and implementation of policy.

The Supreme Court does not deal in the cut-and-dried logic of concrete evidence as one would find in a lower court dealing with a murder case.  They are often called to deal with the law and its impact across the broad swath of society.  Laws are ultimately matters which affect the society which they are written for.  As much as Mr. Roth (and no doubt his mentor, Mr. Scalia) might like to remove "soft facts" such as social impact studies from the picture and only deal in "hard facts", the fact is that the higher courts simply cannot do so and carry out their role effectively.

This is not "judicial activism", as the far right likes to call it.  Rather it is a part of a process which ultimately ends up holding the desires of politicians to exceed their legitimate authority by writing laws which violate fundamental principles set out elsewhere in law.  The Harper Government has done this repeatedly in a swath of laws that it has passed - all of which will have to be challenged in court, or repealed by future governments in order to bring the body of Canada's laws back in line with the principles of our nation's Constitution.

Standby On The Fainting Couches ...

This morning, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down our countries archaic laws on prostitution.

Predictably, the Con$ who report to PMSH are wagging their fingers at the Supreme Court:

Justice Minister Peter MacKay said the government was "concerned" by the ruling, and is "exploring all possible options to ensure the criminal law continues to address the significant harms that flow from prostitution to communities, those engaged in prostitution, and vulnerable persons." 

Meanwhile, Employment Minister Jason Kenney raised the spectre of judicial activism — saying legislators, not judges, should be making the law. It's a topic Prime Minister Stephen Harper has complained about as recently as this week. 

"My own view is the judiciary should be restrained of the exercise of overturning a democratic consensus. Having said that we of course respect the independence of the judiciary and its role," said Kenney. 

The high court struck down all three prostitution-related prohibitions — against keeping a brothel, living on the avails of prostitution and street soliciting — as violations of the constitutional guarantee to life, liberty and security of the person.

Kenney's words are particularly troublesome, as they grossly misrepresent what is going on here. The court has not "overturned a democratic consensus" at all.  The court has overturned laws which are out of date and violated fundamental principles of this country's constitution.

Of course, right on cue, the pearl clutching set over at Lifesite are falling onto their fainting couches:

According to Gwen Landolt, a lawyer and national vice president of REAL Women, the Supreme Court “seems to be in a tizzy” because it has disregarded the basic legal principle that the court stand by its previous rulings. She noted that the Supreme Court had upheld the ban on solicitation in 1990. 

“It’s no longer the court of last resort. It’s now the court of interim resort,” she said. “Everything is up for grabs now. They’ll just change their minds according to the current trend.” 

“The only positive thing coming out of this is that we know the prostitution law was not strong enough to protect women and the community,” she said. “Now we hope the Conservative government will go back and create a law that will provide proper protection for women and for the communities.” 

 Uh yeah, Gwen - "the current trend" is actually evidence-based...