Friday, December 20, 2013

Time to strike down the Supreme Court

MSN News is reporting that the Supreme Court of Canada has struck down the country's anti-prostitution laws in a unanimous decision, and given Parliament one year to come up with new legislation - should it choose to do so. In striking down laws prohibiting brothels, living on the avails of prostitution and communicating in public with clients, the top court ruled Friday that the laws were over-broad and "grossly disproportionate."

"Parliament has the power to regulate against nuisances, but not at the cost of the health, safety and lives of prostitutes," wrote Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin in the 9-0 decision that noted "it is not a crime in Canada to sell sex for money."

This is insanity. It is time for a judicial review. In the United States judges are elected. We need to implement that same process in Canada now. As it stands we have no mechanism in place to get rid of a bad judge. This decision is the perfect example of how bad judges can remove democracy from a democratic nation.

Dug addicted public prostitution is a huge public nuisance. Allowing that is in direct opposition of health and welfare of everyone - the public, the johns and the sex trade workers themselves. We need to find a balance between what consenting adults do behind closed doors and the huge problem of living off the avails and human trafficking. No judge has the authority to legalize those crimes. This is why we need a judicial review right now. Before we look at reviewing the prostitution laws, we need to review the selection and retention of court judges. That is far more urgent as it currently is a direct attack on our civil liberty and our democratic system.


  1. Well, the sad thing is prostitution itself is NOT illegal in Canada anymore. Which is why prostitutes are not arrested, but police only make a token effort against "johns" and never the prostitutes themselves.

    A truly moralistic society would have BOTH illegal and (re)education for those convicted to ensure they do not continue with such activity.

    The Criminal Code of Canada states:


    So, simply put, the government needs to make clear laws making prostitution illegal.

    However, I am afraid they will make it legal "under certain circumstances" such as in bawdy-houses.

    People do not like hearing this in this age of subjective relativism, but make no mistake, there are no coincidences, each of us has been born at this place in history. Common sense and reason tells us these are extreme times and they are arguably they are the most pivotal and challenging since Apostolic times.

    There is a connection between cause and effect. The moral demise of a nation ALWAYS precedes its actual demise. History proves this time and time again.

    Sadly, "intellectual" pride causes so many in power to refuse to make this connection. They are the blind leading the blind and the complacency of the average citizen is an HUGE contributing factor to the demise of society.

    It is this schizophrenic duplicity of politicians who (falsely) claim morality that is a key element.

    As the founder of the blog obviously understands, all of this is interconnected - drug use, prostitution, exploitation of people and the environment, unjust laws, gangs, political corruption. I will sum it up as one definitional element: sin. Period.

    We must look at the future and take heed.

  2. I think that’s the problem. Prostitution wasn’t illegal just the nuisances that go along with it like public solicitation and living off the avails. However, these criminals just struck down those laws which in doing so promotes human trafficking. We now need to counter sue those nine judges for human trafficking liability.

    I don’t think the government can now create a law making prostitution illegal because of this insane court order which is why we need to have a judicial review of the judges. This decision circumvents democracy. If a democratic society elects a government to enact laws, and those laws don’t violate the Charter of Rights by infringing on individual civil liberty, the courts have no right or jurisdiction to over turn the laws created by a democratically elected government.

    What consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business but living off the avails is a huge problem that needs to be addressed. Living off the avails is not a Charter Right. As far as the sin goes, I always found it strange and a double standard that Judah was going to sentence his daughter in law for adultery for having a child out of wedlock after becoming a widow when it turned out he was the father of the child. It was OK for him to sleep with a prostitute but not OK for her to have a child out of wedlock. Kinda strange.

    1. For anyone who is not sure what part of the Holy Bible this is from, it is Genesis 38.

      The Olde Testament can be hard to read and understand for many. There is a common misconception that the New and Old Testaments can be divided and show a "different" God - as if God can be divided against Himself.

      One must read the Old Testament in light of the New Testament and the New in the light of the Old.

      One must also, and sadly this is a contentious issue today, read the Holy Bible with knowledge and understanding of the Magisterium and Tradition of the Catholic Church. Regardless of how many ancient languages one may be fluent on, regardless of "theological" degrees or other types of "Biblical scholarship" one may claim to have, unless one knows this one remains an amateur and an outsider.

      Why the Catholic Church? For the simple reason that is the only Church founded by Christ - God Himself. All others were founded by men, protestantism starting with Martin Luther. For 1500 years there was only ONE Church in the entire world, with the same teachings and beliefs. The same translations of the Holy Bible and the same Tradition. (Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium each have the same authority - sadly protestants have rejected two of these three and only acknowledge Scripture (Sola Scriptura = scripture alone), they have formulated their own fantastic (fantasy) versions of translations that contradict.

      Besides this fact (of the Catholic Church being founded by Christ Himself), which is a simple historically verifiable fact, it was the Catholic Church who compiled the Holy Bible in the first place. Though collections of sacred writings, varying in extent, existed in the various local parishes and Bishoprics, the canon or official list of Scripture was only compiled by the Church toward the end of the fourth century—at Hippo in 393, Carthage in 397, whence it was sent to Rome for confirmation by Pope Damasus in 419. The Bible may be called the notebook of the Church, and she has always claimed to be the guardian, exponent, and interpreter of it (see also: and

      More can be watched, for those who don't like reading (yet, literacy is the most important skill school can (and should!) give you!):

      ANYONE who denies the fact of the Truth of the Holy Bible being a Catholic book needs to watch these first.

      With that important preamble aside, one can easily see the fallen nature of Man from Original Sin easily portrayed in the Book of Genesis. From Cain's individual actions to the collective actions of the cities Sodom and Gomorrah to literally, the entire world outside of Noah and his family collective sinful actions (and their subsequent punishments).

      While reading of Judah, Genesis 36:28 shows Judah's contrition for his acts.

      It is the same contrition that is required from every single gang member (and corrupt constable and politician and permissive parent and citizen).

    2. It is nice to see an intellectual endorsement of the Catholic Church. I actually think Judah and Tamar is a rather humorous biblical story. Judah was all choked when his daughter in law was pregnant being a widow and all and demanded to know who the father of the child was. She said the owner of this staff is the father of my child. It was his staff. He was as they say caught with guile. (Genesis 38:12-26)

  3. [QUOTE]Why the Catholic Church? For the simple reason that is the only Church founded by Christ - God Himself.[UNQUOTE]

    Um, yeah...... :rolleyes:

    That's a real interesting post there Doc. Wow, I don't even know where to begin. Well, actually I do, but I don't have a couple days to lay it all out, so, long story short.....

    The Roman Catholic Church has been, over it's history, as corrupt and evil an organization as ever promulgated by man.

    Where to start........the slaughter of those who questioned church dogma, burned at the stake, the torture of Jews during the inquisition, the centuries of power struggles and murders, the subjugation of aboriginal peoples across the planet "in God's name", the recent decades of the revelations of ongoing sexual abuses where the church and it's officers covered up the actions of the offenders, stonewalling investigations, lying to protect the wealth and the holding of the church, transferring pedophile sodomite priests out in the dead of night, etc., no organization more richly deserves the scorn of any civilized, educated person with a grasp of European and Modern history.

    I will grant you that the church played a central part in the development of Western Civilization, but it exacted a very heavy toll for that contribution, and the case could easily be made that it extended by centuries the misery and ignorance by it's actions which were always designed first and foremost to protect the church and expand it's power at the expense of those it conned with it's claims of being the earthly representatives of God.

    Organized religion is the greatest scam man has ever perpetrated upon himself, responsible for a litany of human misery that will likely never end until the sun burns out in a few billion years if we don't find another way to exterminate our species before then. You know nothing more of the will of God than any other man, and less than many, as you have your face pressed hard against the bark of the tree in front of you. People like you are delusional, and scary, because like any other religious fanatic, with enough of you gathered in one spot together you will be overcome with the idea that you know what is best for other people and must "help" them, whether they desire your "knowledge" or not.

    Where I am right now and have been for most of the last 6 years I am surrounded by religious fanatics who kill each other by the dozens every week in the name of God. You think you're different than them. You're not.

    "Get thee behind me, Satan".

    1. 1) Since you stated the Church was obviously not founded by God, please provide the proofs. (I provided links to very easy to understand and follow evidence proving it was - from your response you do not seem to have watched them(?))

      2) If the Church has been corrupt it is because it is made up of men and women. The Church has been in existence for 2000 years, no other man-made organization has been. Not to mention no other man-made organization that has never changed its beliefs (disciplines like times of fasting and abstinence are a discipline, not a belief). A Catholic Catechism (teachings) that was made 2000 years ago is just as valid today and not one single teaching has changed. If you read the current English Catechism (CCC) you will find most of the references given for the teachings are, in fact, from Holy Scripture or ancient documents and these have not changed at all).

      As for the Inquisition, I am going to posit to you that people were not killed by the Inquisitions (and they were in all Western countries, and the office of the Inquisition still exists today, but is commonly called the "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith").

      I am also going to link this video that investigates it:

      As for the role of the Church in the development of Western Civilization, an excellent book is of the title by Dr. T. Woods:

      He also has written a number of other books that I do think you (and this blog's founder) would enjoy:

      What proof is there that "organized religion" is the "greatest scam"?

      Is that opposed to "unorganized" religion being the opposite?

      As for religious fanatics, what is their fanaticism based upon? Indoctrination, "conversion" by the "sword"? Or by logical reasoning that proves, through logic and reason, the truth of their faith?

      Satan is the father of lies. Do you not think it would be in his interest to confuse people into thinking that religion is a scam and corrupt? For if there is no religion, then we have exactly the social ills this blog is trying to bring light to and get people to think about and to change.

      Religion is the most important part of social history - you cannot remove religion from history - when you try, you have no history.

      If there is only one God (and even Aristotle proved the existence of only one God through the use of logic and reasoning) how can there be no beliefs (religion) in/of/for this God? If there is only one God, there would, by simple logic, be one set of beliefs as there is only ONE God - these beliefs could not contradict each other, or by their very extension, God would contradict Himself and that is impossible.

  4. Oh my. I was just going to say how nice it was to see an intellectual endorsement of the Catholic Church and then Trailrunner has to go and start hating on it. Yes, a lot of very bad things were done in the name of the church during the Spanish Inquisition. The Protestants did similar things to the Catholics in Ireland.

    One of my pet peeves in Northern Ireland was when Protestants would go on and on about Catholics praying to statues and saying set prayers. My response was, they don’t pray to statues. Statues help remind them of deity which is a good thing. Saying set prayers is better than saying no prayers. In contract our society is secular and materialistic. It took me years to readjust after returning home from Ireland. I find my peace in nature. Yet I do support the freedom of religion and admire the reverent feeling within Catholic Cathedrals.

    I was listening to a concert at an Anglican church in Vancouver once and some young kids asked me what the padded wood was then came out of the pews. I said it’s for kneeling on to pray like in the Catholic Church. Sometimes humility and reverence are good things.

    I agree there is a lot of distortion in organized religion but let’s face it, Christ did organize a church when he was here. He did call the religious leaders at the time liars, hypocrites and extortionists. For doing so they said he was sent from the devil and crucified him. No doubt if Christ came again today and taught the same things he taught back then, many in the Christian churches would crucify him all over again.

    I had a good friend in Belfast who was a Catholic and was loosely affiliated with the RA. He’d say who gave the Protestants the authority to start a new church because we sure didn’t. If we don’t have the authority they don’t and if we do have the authority, we didn’t give it to them. He said Peter was the first Pope and there is an unbroken chain of Popes between Peter and the present Pope. That means we have the priesthood authority to act in God’s name by baptizing and performing other ordinances, they don’t.

    I would always smile and say if Peter was the first Pope and if there was an unbroken chain between Peter and the present Pope, you’d be absolutely right. Many would dispute the historical accuracy of that claim but if that was true, you’d be absolutely right.

    Personally I like the tricolor, which is the flag for the Republic of Ireland. Green represents Irish Catholic, Orange represents Protestant and White represents peace. The freedom of religion is a good thing because as Martin Luther king kept saying the old law of an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.

    1. That's okay, views like Trailrunner has are more common than not, today - which is why I posted the links - people react instead of researching. I certainly cannot condemn him but I can try to provide sources that show the common fallacy of such opinions is just that - a common fallacy.

      I used to believe the exact same things - until I researched and studied (and it took literally years of study and research) and realized the truth.

      It's like this:

      I do not like posting links, but since there is a word limit (which I have exceeded on here previously trying to answer a post by some gang supporter and could not, I will post links for follow-up info).

      Critical thinking is NOT (1) collecting information and (2) drawing conclusions. That is reacting - hence the term "reactionary". Sadly, this is what is taught for "critical thinking" in most universities today. The number of professors and doctoral candidate students who I have tried to explain this to and their lack of comprehension is amazing (and sad!).

      Critical thinking IS (1) Collecting information, (2) Evaluating the information, (3) Using Logic to draw conclusions and then (and only then!) (4) Evaluating the conclusions using logic.

      This is (usually) done in hard sciences, but in Arts (history, political studies, commerce, sociology, etc) it is not done. Some claim they do, but since the objective is rejected, it is all a "matter of greys" and therefore "opinion" and if that is the case, then not a thing matters and a person should be able to do what the want (i.e. sell drugs, support prostitution ... etc).

      However, simple logic disproves this.

  5. [QUOTE] Christ.....did call the religious leaders at the time liars, hypocrites and extortionists. For doing so they said he was sent from the devil and crucified him. No doubt if Christ came again today and taught the same things he taught back then, many in the Christian churches would crucify him all over again.[UNQUOTE]

    With few exceptions, religious leaders now are no different. And the last thing they would want is him to return, for exactly the reason you say. JC would definitely call them out on their BS. But since that's not going to happen, they are safe in saying that they do. What a scam.

    [QUOTE] I find my peace in nature. [UNQUOTE]

    A wise thing, as the only ACTUAL evidence we have of the nature of the creator is through his creation. People who wish to know God need only know the "nature" of his (or her) creations. Everything else is at best an opinion with NO empirical evidence to back it up, or at worst (and most often) a power grab designed to provide a comfortable existence, from a position of assumed authority. Great work if you can stomach it, all that's necessary is to be more of a liar and a hypocrite than the average person. People should look to their inner self rather than these parasitic con men. Spirituality and religion are not the same thing.

    I always find it amazing that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, the "Big Three" were all founded by men who claimed God spoke to them, or that they were God. These days we have psychotropic drugs that solve that problem. Yet if God was all powerful (in the sense that these people mean it) he'd be able to talk to a man, pills or no pills, now wouldn't he? God doesn't seem to be talking to people much since the development of psychiatric meds.

    God actually IS all powerful, but through nature, not in some shallow way like the charlatans mean it to awe the flock. And on that note, interesting that they are always the shepherds, and believer's are the flock. Meaning sheep. Pretty insulting metaphor, but at the same time highly instructive as to mindset. It tells you how they view themselves, and those they "fleece". Like I said, great work if you can stomach it.

    1. There is a lot of opinion given here, but no substantiation or evidence to back it up.

      I grant you that Natural Law is God's Law (that's been Catholic teaching since day one) and through it you can find evidence of God. However, you cannot stop there. You have to logically continue.

      To merely reject researching whether or not something is true, as opposed to following here-say, because of a strong opinion does not substantiate this position.

      If the Church (and it's teachings) are true, you need to discern this because if it is - it is your eternal salvation is at stake.

      If the Church (and it's teachings) are not true, you need to discern this as well - not give unsubstantiated opinion, because the way you live your life is at stake.

    2. I can and do stop there. It is not possible to truthfully continue further on this plane of existence. There is zero evidence of God's Law or design past that of Natural Law and what we know of the universe, just a happy story meant to comfort and deceive the unwary.

      God does not appoint anyone his representative, that is something men take for themselves to gain authority over and exploit their fellow man. It is a lie that takes advantage of human nature's need to feel secure and have answers to unknowable questions. "A happy, comforting story is better than no story at all". Well, not if it's self serving BS it's not. Not if it's used for evil it's not. The Catholic church has untold amounts of human misery, death, and the perpetuation of ignorance to it's credit over a 2000 year history. Others are no better, and many would be worse if they had the chance, but you are the one who made the discussion about this institution as opposed to others.

      Your heaven or your hell is in this life, and on this earth. The end is the same for all men. That is the truth as it can be proven. Anything past that is just hope, because no one is coming back to tell any tales of it. I hope for this too, but I'm not counting on it. I don't waste my time in this life praying about the next.

      Religion is a comfort for the weak, not the strong. God is a comfort for both.

    3. Wow, Ebenezer… no wonder you ended up a mercenary in Iraq : )

      God does not appoint anyone his representative? Ah who wrote the bible? Moses was a prophet. God chose him. God has always followed a pattern for revealing truth and that involved calling prophets. They write down what God tells them and it becomes scripture. You’re starting to sound an awful lot like your pal Karl Marx who claimed Religion is the opium of the people.

      The post was about the Supreme Court having too much power to create laws instead of upholding laws in accordance with the Charter of Rights. I made one reference to a biblical story about a guy hooking up with a prostitute and look at the can of worms it opened. The freedom of religion is a sacred right. That includes the right to be atheist. However, I do not believe religion is only for the weak. Darwin cannot explain where we came from, why we are here and where we go after this life. To think man is nothing more than a whirling vagabond of electrons is sad not science. It is incomplete.

      Personally I’m not too worried about eternal salivation because I believe as you sow so shall ye reap. Do unto others and what not.

  6. I respectfully disagree. God reveals truth everyday to all men, it is all around us in the form of his creations and how they work in harmony and balance. It requires no other man to reveal these things, although their observations and explanations can be helpful in understanding things earlier in one's life than would otherwise be reached by one's own observations and experiences. But that's the limit of it. Only thing is, there's no money in that, no advantage to be gained, no authority to be assumed with all the benefits that accrue. Hence, organized religion. It serves many purposes, not all of them bad. The problem is, no way to sift the wheat from the chaff. It's a package deal.

    God uses prophets huh? And how did anyone know they were prophets? Oh that's right, the prophet told them he was. Cool. I'm a prophet, God has revealed to me the truth and righteousness of everything I tell you. Believe, or you are against the Almighty, and he against you, and you shall not inherit the kingdom of blah blah blah......SSDD with every religion. Or do all the non-Christians go to hell for being unbelievers? Or do they have a separate heaven/hell for them? Etc.....

    Listen, this is all garbage. Life is real simple, what you see is what you get. But that's not a very comforting story really. Life? Cool. Dying, not so cool. Pretty much a thing to be avoided if possible. Much easier to get through life if we can come up with a scenario which will mitigate that and offer hope. And there you have it, "religion".

    You are right that the thread got derailed with this, so I'll close my part in that by offering the following quote, and a link to more of the same, with the caveat that unlike Heinlein, I am not an atheist, who says God does not exist. I am an Agnostic, in that I believe God does exist, but admit that I have chosen to believe that by faith in the creation and wonder I see around me, not because I ever had a chat with The Almighty, or because someone else told me that they did.

    [QUOTE] A religion is sometime a source of happiness, and I would not deprive anyone of happiness. But it is a comfort appropriate for the weak, not for the strong. The great trouble with religion - any religion - is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak certainty of reason- but one cannot have both. [Robert A. Heinlein, from "Friday"]

    PS. Though this was all a massive thread derail, it's IMHO just another demonstration of how awesome this blog is sometimes.......not just the news of the day, nothing less than the major questions of human existence on the front burner. Rock on.

  7. A few points in response to the actual substance of your post:

    1. Not all American judges are elected; it varies from state to state. And NO federal judges (which includes the Supreme Court of the U.S.) are elected. They are appointed, and can serve for life.

    2. The Supreme Court of Canada's role is not just to "uphold laws" under the Charter. Its role is to ensure that laws comply with the Charter, and sometimes that means it has to strike down those laws. In this case, it held that Parliament had legitimate goals in criminalizing street solicitation, "common bawdy houses", and living off the avails, but that it went too far. Thus, for example, the problem with the living off the avails offence was not that it prohibited pimping (which would clearly be a legitimate thing for Parliament to do), but that it prohibited sex workers from doing things like hire bodyguards that would make their lives safer. Parliament is free to re-enact this law, making it more precisely tailored to the actual problem it's trying to solve (i.e. exploitation of prostitutes by pimps).

    3. The underlying issue (here, as with drug laws) is a moral and philosophical one: do we prohibit acts that society considers harmful or morally objectionable, or do we recognize that these acts are still going to take place, regardless of whether they're against the law, and take steps to reduce their harmful effect? Parliament will have to consider those issues on these prostitution laws. What do they do? Make prostitution itself illegal? (That would be vulnerable to another Charter challenge, based on this ruling.) Try the "Nordic solution" of criminalizing the customers (asymmetrical criminalization)? Leave prostitution largely unregulated (other than for health purposes)? There is evidence that countries, like the Netherlands, that have adopted the latter approach have seen an increase in human trafficking.

    4. All of these possible solutions are problematic. The problem is not the law or the courts, but in the fact that so many men consider it acceptable to purchase sex. They are wilfully blind to the suffering and exploitation involved. Until we can change men's attitudes, prostitution, and the manifold harms it spawns, will remain.

  8. A final point I forgot to mention:

    Parliament does have a way to "strike down" the SCC decision: it could re-enact the law using the "Notwithstanding" clause, which would mean that it would operate, even though it violates the Charter, for five years. There are good reasons why governments (other than the Quebec government) hesitate to openly say they're violating Charter rights. Opinion polls show that Canadians have far higher regard for judges than for elected politicians!

    A more likely solution could be to modify the laws to deal with the biggest problems the court saw with them, but still combat those problems surrounding prostitution. The SCC has said that it sees its relationship with Parliament as a "dialogue", so it would not automatically strike down such a law.


Comments are moderated so there will be a delay before they appear on the blog.