The Case Against Legalized Prostitution

Prostitution is a practice that arises from the historical subordination of women and the accompanying patriarchal right of men to buy and exchange women as objects for sexual use.

Canadians embrace and respect the worth and dignity of every person and our Courts have confirmed that respect for human dignity is an underlying principle upon which Canada is based. However, the practice of prostitution is an assault on human dignity.

In 1949 Canada signed the United Nations Convention to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking In Persons which included this statement:

“Prostitution and the accompanying evil of the traffic in persons
for the purpose of prostitution are incompatible with the dignity and worth of
persons and endanger the welfare of the individual, the family and the community.”

While Canada has chosen not to criminalize prostitution itself, our criminal law provides that communication for the purpose of soliciting, living off the avails, and common bawdy houses or brothels are illegal.

The argument to legalize these prostitution offences is based on the notion that, if legal, women will be safer; they will be able to communicate and screen their potential customers; they will be able to hire bodyguards and assistants; and they will move from street soliciting to brothels, which are safer.

The trouble with their argument is that countries that have legalized prostitution for those same reasons have learned the hard way that the gains they hoped to achieve for women in prostitution have been illusory.

The best example is the State of Victoria, Australia, home to capital city Melbourne, where prostitution was legalized in the 1980′s in order to minimize harm to prostitutes.

Their worthy goal was to eradicate the criminal element, guard against unregulated expansion of the practice and combat violence against prostitutes.

Instead, according to noted expert and social scientist Dr. Janice Raymond and others working in the field, legalization led to a massive expansion of prostitution, where ironically, the growth was mainly in the illegal sector where unlicensed brothels proliferated.

The legalization of brothels did not empower women to work as independent businesswomen in their own organized brothels because, not unexpectedly, large brothel operators dominated the brothel industry making it difficult for individual prostitutes or even small groups of women to compete against the huge money and marketing of commercial brothels.

Street prostitution did not disappear simply because women who work outside have a host of social problems including homelessness, addictions, are under-age, or are unwilling to register with the government. Women in these situations were not able to be employed by brothels by the nature of their lifestyle.

The law, while intending to eliminate organized crime, brought with it an explosion of human trafficking by international crime syndicates. Finally, the legalization of brothels legitimized pimps and procurers as business men.

While prostitution will always be with us, do we want our streets, not just the back alleys, to be strolls for working girls, who can linger as long as they choose when the communication law is struck? Do we want our neighbouring homes and apartments to be commercial legal brothels? Do we want to change the social fabric of Canada by endorsing prostitution?

You ask if there is a solution? Many are recommending the approach taken by Sweden where their legislators recognized that prostitution causes serious harm to individuals and society as a whole, that it is associated with crime, violence, and human trafficking, but that at its core it is the victimization and oppression of women.

The Swedish model criminalizes the purchaser of sexual services, but not the women who engage in prostitution. The government reports that street prostitution has been reduced by 50%, but more importantly, the practice of prostitution is not condoned and is seen for what it is: a form of violence against women.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Canadian Couple Cancel Adoption and Sue Agency for Drug-Addicted Baby

A Canadian couple recently appeared in court in the State of Indiana seeking monetary compensation for the emotional distress they experienced during the process of adopting a new-born baby.

The facts of the case reveal that several days before the birth of the infant, the adoption agency became aware that the birth mother was addicted to methadone during her pregnancy, information they chose not to disclose to the excited adopting couple who arrived for the birth of their child only days later.

The new parents were elated as they cared for the baby, named her, and sent snapshots back home to friends and family, but they noticed that the infant seemed to be sensitive to their touch and was experiencing multiple, difficult bowel movements. It was then that the agency social worker advised them that the baby was suffering methadone withdrawal.

They were devastated and forced to make one of the most difficult decisions of their lives. They had signed a contract where they stipulated that they would not take a child whose mother abused drugs, and that is exactly the situation they found themselves in.

They refused to take the child and sued the agency. The agency argued that another contractual term provided that the agency would not be held liable to prospective adoptive parents if relevant facts about the mother and the infant were not brought to the parent’s attention, because the facts were unknown to the agency.

The trouble was that the agency was aware of the baby’s medical situation but did not tell the couple until the new parents had spent considerable time bonding with the child.

While the trial court in Indiana threw out the couple’s lawsuit, the Indiana Court of Appeal ruled that the action could proceed, noting that the contractual protection advanced by the agency did not assist him as they were obliged to inform the couple of the new information as soon as they were aware of it, but did not.

The action against the adoption agency is a civil claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a tort that rarely succeeds in Canada, however, U. S. juries are renowned for giving large damage awards.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Father In Full Nazi Uniform Seeks Access to HIs Son

In August of 2010 I wrote about a couple in Trenton, New Jersey, Heath and Deborah Campbell, who chose Nazi-inspired names for their three children: Adolph Hitler Campbell, JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell, and Honszlynn Hinler Campbell. Weird? Yes. Damaging? Very likely. Newsworthy? You bet!

The national media found their story when a major chain grocery store refused to embellish little Adolph’s chocolate birthday cake with his legal name. Apparently, the couple found a Wal-Mart in a neighboring community that accepted the assignment.

The case then came to the attention of child protection authorities in New Jersey who obtained custody of the children and placed them in foster care. The burning question was “Could the State remove the children because of their unusual names?”.

The Family Court determined that there was no evidence of abuse or neglect, however, the State appealed the matter to a higher court who stayed the Family Court order and kept the children in foster care until the appellate court could hear and decide the case.

The appeal court found that the children’s parents were not fit to have custody of the children, however, the court did not mention the oddity of the children’s names. Instead, the court focused on the unspecified but significant physical and psychological challenges the couple faced and their lack of insight as to their difficulties.

The evidence also showed that both parents had been abused themselves and could barely read or write. The naming of their children was indicative of their problems.

The update to this story is that the Campbell’s separated and their three children were adopted. A fourth child, Heinrich Hons, was seized by child protection authorities shortly after his birth.

This week Mr. Campbell showed up at a court hearing in full Nazi regalia seeking to gain access to his now two-year-old son, Heinrich Hons, who he has not seen since the child was 16 hours old.

Mr. Campbell insists that despite his political views and his glorification of Adolph Hitler, he is a loving parent who ought to have a relationship with his young son. It will be interesting to see if he is successful. The question is does his freedom of expression take precedence over any risk he may pose to his son’s best interests?

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Steve Nash’s Child Support Dispute Turns Into PR Nightmare

British Columbia is proud of native son Steve Nash and rightly so. He shines for his athletic prowess, his philanthropic focus, and his entrepreneurship. An NBA all-star, his career has seen him play for Phoenix, Dallas and now, Los Angeles. He has an Order of Canada and received an honourary Doctorate in Law from the University of Victoria.

In 2001, Nash met his future wife, Alejandra Amarilla, in Manhattan. They married in June 2005 and had twin daughters, Lola and Bella, born in 2004, and then a son, Matteo Joel, born in 2010. On the day of his son’s birth, Nash made a statement to the press in which he announced his son’s birth, but called it a “bittersweet moment”, revealing that he and his wife had “lived separately for the past several months” and were “in the process of dissolving” their marriage.

Steve Nash’s marriage breakdown was just another celebrity split-up in an era where divorce announcements are as frequent as birth announcements and garnered a relatively modest amount of media attention.

However, Nash’s polished image is taking a trouncing as celebrity gossip websites announce that he and his former wife, Alejandro Amarilla, are engaged in a dispute about whether she can move with their three children from Phoenix, where the couple lived during their marriage, to Los Angeles, where Steve Nash now lives and works.

Stories circulating in the media include the allegation that Ms. Amarilla only wishes to leave Arizona so she can avail herself of what is described as California’s more generous child support laws.

The media has reported that while the children reside in Arizona, Mr. Nash is not obliged to pay child support and he is only resisting his ex-wife’s move to California so he can maintain the status quo.

Details are scarce and Mr. Nash’s advisors are keeping a low profile, however, it strains credulity to believe that Nash is a “deadbeat dad” as some twitter enthusiasts are suggesting.

What has emerged is that his ex-wife received a mult-million dollar divorce settlement, has her own financial resources, and Mr. Nash pays for the children’s education, medical and related expenses, extracurricular activities and the children’s nanny.

It is more likely that Nash’s opposition to the children’s move is because he understands that children need stability and certainty, which is what they have in Phoenix. Mr. Nash’s parents also live there. Finally, to move the children to follow their father in the waning years of his career may entail further transitions for the children as his playing days come to an end.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Law Firm Places Corporate Client Ahead of Divorce Client and Gets Sued

A prominent U.S. law firm, Blank Rome, with twelve offices around the world, is being sued in New York by a divorce client who alleges that the firm was more interested in protecting their corporate client, Morgan Stanley, then looking out for her best interests.

Kristina Armstrong was married to Michael Armstrong, who was head of capital markets and international and domestic private wealth management at Morgan Stanley. Ms. Armstrong’s court action alleges that Blank Rome failed to advise her they were representing Morgan Stanley in a $400 million transaction and took steps to protect her husband in their divorce case. The court document reads:

“Mr. Armstrong sat at the controls of Morgan Stanley, which employed and paid Blank Rome millions of dollars in legal fees, thus allowing Blank Rome to be the ultimate “puppet master” as Blank Rome could control Ms. Armstrong’s divorce litigation in a manner designed to protect Morgan Stanley.”

The lawsuit suggests that during the divorce litigation her lawyers failed to seek possession of Mr. Armstrong’s securities license, the “single most important economic asset at play” in the divorce which she values at $12 to $16 million.

Mr. Armstrong denies knowing of any relationship between his wife’s lawyers and Morgan Stanley and the firm vigorously denies their former client’s allegations.

What is interesting about this case is that it appears as if Mr. Armstrong’s professional credentials, namely his securities license, may be property that is divisible in the event of marriage breakdown. Indeed, New York is one of the few jurisdictions that places a value on a professional degree acquired during the marriage. Its lifetime value is calculated by experts, who charge big fees for their valuation services.

So, if you have credentials as a lawyer, doctor, securities trader, MBA, architect and presumably other professional designations, this qualification will be monetized and a payment will be made to the professional’s spouse. In one case the career of an opera singer was valued and divided between the spouses.

Not surprisingly, this law is widely criticized and no wonder…. in one case a wife’s nursing degree was valued at $$850,000 and after subtracting her student loans the court ordered her to pay 25% of the value to her husband over a period of 396 months. At the appeal level the value was changed to a mere $155,000 but the wife was still required to pay 25% to her ex-husband. The most common reaction to this law is ” I have to pay my spouse money that I have not yet earned?”

Yes, that’s about right, and that is in addition to any spousal support order. Happily for Canadians, while some lawyers have tried to press for a division of career credentials, Canadian courts have resisted the notion that a career can be valued and monetized with a payout to one’s partner.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Judicial “Copying” Longstanding and Acceptable Says Highest Court

Two years ago the British Columbia Supreme Court heard a case about a young boy who had severe brain damage and cerebral palsy as a result of difficulties during his birth. His mother sought damages on his behalf and was awarded several million dollars. His doctors and the hospital, who were found to be at fault, appealed the decision.

As is usual, a three-member panel of British Columbia’s Court of Appeal listened to their arguments and handed down their Reasons. What turned this case from a tragedy for this family to a case worthy of the attention of the Supreme Court of Canada was that two of the appeal judges excoriated the trial judge, accusing him of plagiarism by including lengthy excerpts from one of the lawyers’ written closing arguments in his Reasons for Judgment.

As a result of their findings, they set aside the young boy’s damage award and ordered a new trial, a devastating result for a family who had already suffered so much.

Many in the legal profession were shocked that this usually scholarly, genteel group of jurists would publicly impugn a sitting judge, for indulging in a practice that was frankly, commonplace. In fact, as far back as British jurist Lord Blackstone, lawyers hoped their written closing submissions would find a place in the Court’s Reasons and ultimately, dictate the Court’s decision.

Last week the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Mr. Justice Groves’ so-called plagiarism was nothing of the kind and his rebuke by the appeal judges was exposed for what it was: an inappropriate attack on an exemplary judge who did nothing wrong. (Cojocaru v. BC Women’s Hospital 2013 SCC 30)

Chief Justice McLachlin noted that “judicial copying” is a longstanding and accepted practice which should only be condemned if it so egregious that it displaces the presumption that judges fufill their duties with integrity and impartiality.

She gave short-shrift to the criticism that a judges’s Reasons must be an “original” product of the judge’s mind and mused that a lack of originality is “part and parcel” of the judicial process:

“Borrowed prose, attributed or not, does not establish that a judge has failed to come to grips with the issues to be decided.”

She also affirmed that to criticize a judge for utilizing excerpts from counsel’s written submissions is to fundamentally misunderstand the Court’s task and the time-honoured tradition of decision-writing.

She noted that unlike term papers, novels, essays and newspaper articles, a judge’s Reasons reflect a body of law and legal principles that have been arrived at based on precedents, which over the years when recited in successive decisions take on a “deja-vu” quality. The verbatim repetition of legal formulas is de rigueur, representing the “tried and true” rather than the novel.

For Mr. Justice Groves the exoneration must be bittersweet, as he spent two years under the shadow of plagiarism that never was.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Guest Post: What Happens When Nannies Get Stuck Between Divorcing Parents

Divorces are stressful, that cannot be denied. The long and arduous process of dividing family property can leave feelings of animosity and regret. As a parent going through divorce you need to consider how the disruption inherent in divorce is going to affect your much-loved nanny.

Of course, your nanny will have to change the daily routine depending on where the children are at during that point in time, but what legalities are involved in continuing the employment of your caregiver once the divorce process begins.

1. Scheduling – As you and your spouse have more than likely separated, or are planning to separate, exact scheduling needs to be addressed for your nanny. Of course, this is going to be dependent on the new schedules of each household. Any overtime incurred from alterations within the time-frame will also have to be addressed. You will need to discuss the situation with your nanny and discover if the new schedules are something he or she can keep.

2. Payment Responsibilities – You and your former spouse will need to discuss the payment responsibilities of maintaining the nanny for your child. This may or may not be decreed by the judge during the custody hearing. If the two of you can devise a reasonable plan for retaining your nanny, there is a solid chance the judge will consider the idea. In a joint custody situation, usually both parents pay an equal share of the amount owed to the caregiver.

3. Time Off – Scheduled time off will be dependent on how the new living arrangements are developed. If one of you takes the child on vacation during a scheduled work-week for the nanny, does he or she get paid time off? Will your nanny now have to work weekends in either household due to these changes? After a divorce, there could be extreme changes to the scheduling and if your nanny is unable to adapt, you may need to look for an alternative solution.

4. Parental Rights – If there are agreements or court orders involving the parental rights of your former spouse, your nanny needs to be informed immediately. Depending on the circumstances surrounding the divorce, there could be specific rules put into place by the courts for yourself or your ex-partner. Your nanny needs to know if there are specific times that a parent is allowed to visit the child and/or if the parent can pick up the child to take him or her out to dinner.

This is as much for your benefit as it is for the child and the nanny. Without this knowledge, the nanny could end up in a battle with one parent, being unaware of the court ordered parenting schedule. Your nanny needs to be in the loop so that she can ensure that your child is protected. A prized nanny will not let anyone assert access rights over your children, without a court order.

AUTHOR bio
SARA DAWKINS is an active nanny as well as an active freelance writer. She is a frequent contributor of http://www.nannypro.com/. Learn more about her at http://www.nannypro.com/blog/sara-dawkins/.