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

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

Conrad Black Must Wait in Court Line Like Everyone Else

Conrad Black’s battle to retain his Order of Canada designation will not be resolved quickly, much to his dismay.

Upon receiving notice that the Governor-General’s Advisory Council was reviewing his membership in the Order of Canada, Lord Black sought an opportunity to make oral submissions to the Council, a suggestion rebuffed by them. His attempt to obtain a court order from the Federal Court also failed when they ruled that the removal process only permitted written submissions.

Mr. Black filed an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal and brought a motion asking the Appeal Court to expedite his appeal hearing, however, he ran into a roadblock when the Court refused to move his case to the front of the line.

The expression “justice for all” comes to mind, or in this case, the delay in Canada’s justice system is an annoyance that does not differentiate between rich or poor, high-profile case or minor nuisance, or expensive lawyer or legal aid.

What it does underscore, however, is the frustration of litigants who wait not months, but years, to access what is reputedly one of the world’s leading justice systems, and everyone is complaining.

Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin, who also happens to Chair the ten-member Advisory Council,in a recent speech at the Empire Club in Toronto, identified “delay” as one of the greatest challenges to our court system. She noted that murder trials that used to occupy five to seven days of court time, now take five to seven months and quoted statistics that an average trial in Vancouver in 1996 took 12.9 hours and only six years later, required an average of 25.7 hours to complete.

Mr. Black is waiting for a date in the Federal Court, a system that is bogged down by thousands of immigration cases and no wonder, when you consider cases like Parminder Singh Saini, a convicted hijacker who entered Canada using a false name and then tied up the Federal Court system for fifteen years in his attempts to avoid deportation.

Meanwhile, Ashley Smith, the young woman who died in prison custody and is now the subject of a coroner’s inquest in Toronto, filed a grievance with the Federal Court, who has jurisdiction over prisons and inmates, that was only opened two months after her death.

So now Conrad Black is at the back of the 12 to 18 month line-up that plagues not just the Federal Court but Provincial and Superior Courts across Canada.

Welcome to the world of single mothers waiting for child support hearings; wrongfully dismissed employees longing for recompense for lost wages; car accident victims who desperately wait for their damage awards and tens of thousands of others who still want to believe that Canada has the finest justice system in the world.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Ray Charles Estate Fights Children

An R&B all-star, who can forget Ray Charles’ rendition of “Georgia on my Mind”? He died on June 10, 2004 at the age of 73 of hepatitis C, leaving behind two ex-wives and twelve children with nine different mothers.

Having reached the pinnacle of show business success, and receiving recognition and awards galore, he became a wealthy man. Two years before he died, he gave his twelve children trust funds of $500,000 each, in exchange for their promises not to challenge the terms of his will. At the time he made these gifts, two of his children were in jail, a fate he managed to avoid despite many years of heroin addiction.

The balance of Mr. Charles’ estate was left to the Ray Charles Foundation for charitable purposes, including hearing-impairment charities and other educational organizations, under the control of his long-time manager Joe Adams.

However, in 2010 Ray Charles’ kids served notice to the record companies and the Foundation that they were terminating the royalty rights on over fifty of their father’s musical compositions, and reclaiming them. U.S. copyright legislation provides that after 35 years, rights to artistic works can be reclaimed by the artist as long as the artist was not an employee of a corporation when he or she created the artistic work.

Interestingly, the recording companies did not challenge the children’s actions, but the Ray Charles Foundation, who received the financial benefit of the royalties, sued the children alleging their father did not own the rights as he was merely an employee of the recording companies. Later in the litigation the Foundation abandoned this position.

On January 28, 2013 Judge Audrey Collins of the United States District Court in California dismissed the Foundation’s lawsuit, finding that the Foundation had no legal status to challenge the copyright notices and ordered the Foundation to pay the children’s legal costs.

Of course, the case is far from over, since the Ray Charles Foundation has announced they will be appealing the ruling.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Euthanasia: Are Children Next?

When British Columbia Justice Lynn Smith declared that the Criminal Code’s provision against assisted suicide was unconstitutional, she reasoned that Parliament could create a system of assisted suicide that would protect the vulnerable and the mentally ill. She gave the federal government twelve months to enact new law.

It seems Belgium enacted such a law in 2002, but its “protective” features have failed miserably, a fact that has been exposed with the recent, legal, assisted suicides of 45-year-old Belgian twins, Mark and Eddy Verbessem.

Belgium’s legislation, The Belgium Act on Euthanasia, stipulates that a person seeking assisted suicide must be in a “medically futile condition of constant and unbearable physical or mental suffering that can not be alleviated, resulting from an incurable disorder caused by illness or accident.”

Based on the media coverage of the Verbessems’ suicide, it seems doubtful that the twins actually qualified under the legislation. It was reported that the twins feared institutionalization when they became blind.

Yes, they were deaf and conversed in sign language and yes, they had been told to expect to lose their sight, but there is no indication their condition was “medically futile” or their mental suffering at the prospects of becoming blind, could not be alleviated with appropriate medical treatment.

The Belgium law also compels a potential candidate for assisted suicide to obtain a second opinion from a psychiatrist or medical specialist, if the condition of the patient does not indicate imminent death as a result of their disorder. It is unknown whether this further layer of “protection” was provided to the Verbessem twins.

That the twin’s efforts to end it all was viewed with dubiety is apparent by the fact that after they recruited a local doctor, it took them two years to find a medical facility that would allow the lethal injection.

A few days after the twins died, the Socialist government of Belgium tabled a legal amendment which would permit children and Alzheimer’s patients to be euthanized as well.

If our Supreme Court agrees that the current Canadian law is unconstitutional, as they are predicted to rule, let’s hope that our federal government does a better job than the Belgians of applying the law.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Do Male Jurors Discriminate Against Fat Women?

Researchers at Yale University recently conducted a study with 471 mock jurors. Each of them was given a hypothetical criminal case of cheque fraud, together with photographs of four fake defendants.

The four accused consisted of a portly man, a slender man, a svelte woman and an overweight woman. The jurors then assessed each accused’s guilt on a scale of five, based on their appearance.

The study results showed that male jurors consistently found the fat woman to be guilty, and the bias against overweight women was even greater if the male juror was a thin man. Curiously, this weight bias did not apply to male jurors assessing the guilt of overweight men and female jurors displayed no discrimination against fat people.

Natasha Schevey, who led the research, concluded that weight-based stigmatization is now on par with rates of racial discrimination. In other words, overweight people are vulnerable to bias and discrimination similar to racial prejudice, based on stereotyping that depicts overweight people as “greedy, lazy, unmotivated, and lacking in self-discipline and will power”.

The results of this study are no surprise to researchers who specialize in obesity. Similar studies at Yale have shown that the medical community holds disdain for fat people under their care, even in cases where the physicians themselves specialize in obesity.

Other studies have shown that young people choosing partners would prefer a disabled partner rather than an obese one, and employment research indicates that overweight people are 37 times more likely to suffer employment discrimination.

What is shocking is that gender, disability, sexual orientation, and racial bias is protected by law, but weight discrimination has no legal protection. The victims of weight bias suffer in silence. Is it even possible to change public opinion?

In 2004 there were 7 million overweight people in Canada and 4.5 million obese people.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Looking Back: The Law in 2012-Part 2

The last six months of 2012 did not disappoint as far as provocative legal stories, from Judge Lori Douglas to Warren Jeffs, with a smattering of Halle Berry and bad boy Dennis Rodman. Here are the highlights:

July 2012- The Lori Douglas story was at a full boil throughout the month of July as the Judicial Inquiry into her knowledge of her husband’s recruitment of his client as a sexual partner for her, provided the salacious details behind the judicial robes.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police also took a heavy hit when a large group of female officers spoke out about sexual harassment and discrimination in their workplace. It was a body blow the force did not need, coming at the same time as the details of RCMP incompetency in the Pickton investigation came to light.

August 2012- Halle Berry’s personal life was on display as she battled for custody of her daughter in full press legal combat, while it was difficult to determine if Dennis Rodman deserved censure or pity when the details of his out-of-control life became apparent amid allegations that he owed hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid child support.

September 2012- While America’s Election consumed the media and was the subject of a story on Lawdiva, closer to home the tragic situation befalling the children of Bountiful, British Columbia made the news, as six ex-communicated FLDS fathers of 42 children successfully obtained court orders to see their children.

October 2012- The guest post of Agnes Jimenez on “Cyberbullies” was prescient coming mere weeks before the tragedy of B.C. teen Amanda Todd’s suicide.

November 2012- Halle Berry resurfaced in November when the family court ruled that her application to move to France with her daughter, Nahla, was denied. A few weeks later her former partner and the father of Nahla, Gabriel Aubry and her boyfriend, Olivier Martinez engaged in fisticuffs during an access transfer of Nahla at Ms. Berry’s home. Lucky for both, no charges were laid.

December 2012- Only in California, you say? The issue of gay therapy for children who wish to overcome homosexuality hit the news when the California legislature enacted law that would prevent therapists from employing “gay aversion” therapy. A short time later, a California judge struck down the law. Undoubtedly, 2013 will see further court hearings on the issue of gay therapy.

Lindsay Lohan was a regular newsmaker throughout 2012, culminating in charges being laid in both California and New York for assault, reckless driving, and obstruction of justice. Her comeback role as Elizabeth Taylor in a television movie was not the success she hoped for as critics slashed her thespian efforts. More to come in 2013, to be sure.

Bye-bye to 2012…Welcome to 2013!

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

T’was the Night Before Christmas (In Legalese)

Whereas, on or about the night prior to Christmas, there did occur at a
certain improved piece of real property (hereinafter “the House”) a general
lack of stirring by all creatures therein, including, but not limited to a
mouse.

A variety of foot apparel, e.g. stocking, socks, etc., had been affixed by
and around the chimney in said House in the hope and/or belief that St. Nick
a/k/a/ St. Nicholas a/k/a/ Santa Claus (hereinafter “Claus”) would arrive at
sometime thereafter.

The minor residents, i.e. the children, of the aforementioned House were
located in their individual beds and were engaged in nocturnal
hallucinations, i.e. dreams, wherein visions of confectionery treats,
including, but not limited to, candies, nuts and/or sugar plums, did dance,
cavort and otherwise appear in said dreams.

Whereupon the party of the first part (sometimes hereinafter referred to as
“I”), being the joint-owner in fee simple of the House with the parts of the
second part (hereinafter “Mamma”), and said Mamma had retired for a
sustained period of sleep. (At such time, the parties were clad in various
forms of headgear, e.g. kerchief and cap.)

Suddenly, and without prior notice or warning, there did occur upon the
unimproved real property adjacent and appurtent to said House, i.e. the
lawn, a certain disruption of unknown nature, cause and/or circumstance. The
party of the first part did immediately rush to a window in the House to
investigate the cause of such disturbance.

At that time, the party of the first part did observe, with some degree of
wonder and/or disbelief, a miniature sleigh (hereinafter “the Vehicle”)
being pulled and/or drawn very rapidly through the air by approximately
eight (8) reindeer. The driver of the Vehicle appeared to be and in fact
was, the previously referenced Claus.

Said Claus was providing specific direction, instruction and guidance to the
approximately eight (8) reindeer and specifically indentified the animal
co-conspirators by name: Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Comet, Cupid,
Donner and Blitzen (hereinafter “the Deer”). (Upon information and belief,
it is further asserted an additional co-conspirator named “Rudolph” may have
been involved.)

The party of the first part witnessed Claus, the Vehicle and the Deer
intentionally and willfully trespass upon the roofs of several residences
located adjacent to and in the vicinity of the House, and noted that the
Vehicle was heavily laden with packages, toys and other items of unknown
origin or nature. Suddenly, without prior invitation or permission, either
express or implied, the Vehicle arrived at the House, and Claus entered said
House via the chimney.

Said Claus was clad in a red fur suit, which was partially covered with
residue from the chimney, and he carried a large sack containing a portion
of the aforementioned packages, toys, and other unknown items. He was
smoking what appeared to be tobacco in a small pipe in blatant violation of
local ordinances and health regulations.

Claus did not speak, but immediately began to fill the stocking of the minor
children, which hung adjacent to the chimney, with toys and other small
gifts. (Said items did not, however, constitute “gifts” to said minor
pursuant to the applicable provisions of the U.S. Tax Code.)

Upon completion of such task, Claus touched the side of his nose and flew,
rose and/or ascended up the chimney of the House to the roof where the
Vehicle and Deer waited and/or served as “lookouts.” Claus immediately
departed for an unknown destination.

However, prior to the departure of the Vehicle, Deer and Claus from said
House, the party of the first part did hear Claus state and/or exclaim:

“Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night!” Or words to that effect.

Author Unknown

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND PEACE ON EARTH, GOODWILL TO ALL MEN (and boys, girls and women)

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Gay to Straight Therapy Banned in Calfornia

Controversial “gay conversion” therapy will no longer be used in California to treat children 18 and under who seek to change their same-sex attraction to heterosexual attraction.

Governor Jerry Brown recently signed a Bill prohibiting state licensed therapists to engage in treatments intended to assist gay and lesbian kids to change their sexual preference, a law that comes into effect on January 1, 2013.

Proponents of the new law argue that therapies designed to alter a minor’s sexual orientation have been scientifically shown to be ineffective. Homosexuality as a psychiatric diagnosis was completely removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health in 1986, and in 2005 the American Psychiatric Association rejected the proposition that therapy could be useful for those who wished to “go straight”.

In 2007 Professors Stanton Hope from the prestigious Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois and Mark Yarhouse from Regents University in Virginia Beach joined forces in a study to test the APA’s theory that therapy was of no use.

Thirty-five of their original 98 participants dropped out almost immediately, leaving 65 research subjects at the conclusion of the study. The data was obtained through the organization called Exodus International, a Christian group whose mandate is to give homosexuals “freedom through Christ”.

Drs. Hope and Yarhouse published their results, finding that 23% of their group reported no change, 30% opted for celibacy, 20% embraced their orientation, while 23% reported they were “cured” with no harmful psychological aftermath.

However, critics say their lack of scientific rigour suggests their research is flawed and unreliable. Others say that their results do show behavioral changes, which are different from changes in sexual orientation.

What exactly is conversion therapy? It has been described as encompassing intrusive aversion treatments, drug therapy, Christian informed psychoanalysis, and spiritual intervention. Critics say the treatment brings on shame, grief, and anxiety causing patients to suffer depression and increased suicidal tendencies.

Critics of the new law have already filed lawsuits challenging the legislation on the basis that it breaches constitutionally guaranteed rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. They say the law is a disgusting abuse of government powers and a tyrannical interference with parental rights, who alone should determine how to help their child.

Until the law is overturned, a result that I believe is highly unlikely, therapists who continue to practice “gay to straight” therapy will be disciplined for unprofessional conduct.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Court Room Fashion Police

Clients often wonder what they should wear to court. I usually tell them that “business casual” is acceptable, but jackets and ties are never out-of-place. On more than a few occasions an in-person litigant has been so well dressed that the judge assumes he/she is a lawyer. Looking around at certain lawyers’ attire, I am not sure that is a compliment! My husband, who is a retired police officer, is often asked if he is a lawyer.

So, we know what to wear to court, let’s talk about what not to wear…

Judges in Kent County, Delaware have instituted a formal dress code after one woman appeared in court in her pajamas. (Didn’t Michael Jackson do the same thing during his trial? Yes, but his was designer apparel!).

The list of banned clothing in Kent County includes saggy pants, bare feet, curlers, gang clothes, exposed undergarments, skirts more than four inches above the knee, muscle shirts, tank tops, halters and bare midriffs.

USA Today cites other examples of court attire judged to be inappropriate:

1. A woman from Detroit who wore a rumpled sweat suit that read “Hot Stuff” on her derriere;

2. A woman from Bakersfield who came to court with rubber flip-flops;

3. A judge in Texas bans people with excessive body piercings and tattoos that are not covered;

4. A man in Ohio was threatened with jail time for wearing a t-shirt with the horror character Chucky on it and the words “Say Goodbye to the Killer”.

As Mark Twain said “Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence”.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang