Landmark Case of Bedford v. Canada Henceforth, the case of Bedford v. Canada is used to shows the legal right of safety in the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms is violated due to criminalization of acts related to prostitution. The applicants of the case were former prostitutes who wished to establish prostitution as an indoor business. Furthermore, they challenged the provisions which were the criminalized aspects of prostitution. The provision which they challenged include;
s. 210 keeping a common bawdy house,
s. 212(1)(j) living of the avails of prostitution and
s. 213(1)(c) communicating in a public place for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or of obtaining the sexual services of a prostitute.
Keeping a Common Bawdy House provision and compromising of Safety The keeping of a common bawdy is …show more content…
Clearly this section is in place to prevent exploitation of prostitutes by pimps and other individuals who exploit prostitutes and profit off of their efforts (Stewart, 20.., Pg. 200). While this section is created with the wellbeing of sex workers in mind, but due to the numerous ways it can be interpreted it also put prostitutes’ safety at risk. In Bedford the court struck down section 212(1)(j) for the reasons that it did not satisfy the requirements of fundamental justice. This provision is seen as a ‘double-edged sword’, while the provision might be aimed at addressing exploitive relationship between prostitutes and pimps, it also criminalizes persons who provides their services to prostitutes in return for money. A prime examples of this hiring of bodyguards or drivers who help ensure their safety is illegal under section 212(1)(j). The court deemed the section to be too broad because it effected non-exploitive relationships which had no connection to the law whatsoever and hence had been struck down for the time
s. 210 keeping a common bawdy house,
s. 212(1)(j) living of the avails of prostitution and
s. 213(1)(c) communicating in a public place for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or of obtaining the sexual services of a prostitute.
Keeping a Common Bawdy House provision and compromising of Safety The keeping of a common bawdy is …show more content…
Clearly this section is in place to prevent exploitation of prostitutes by pimps and other individuals who exploit prostitutes and profit off of their efforts (Stewart, 20.., Pg. 200). While this section is created with the wellbeing of sex workers in mind, but due to the numerous ways it can be interpreted it also put prostitutes’ safety at risk. In Bedford the court struck down section 212(1)(j) for the reasons that it did not satisfy the requirements of fundamental justice. This provision is seen as a ‘double-edged sword’, while the provision might be aimed at addressing exploitive relationship between prostitutes and pimps, it also criminalizes persons who provides their services to prostitutes in return for money. A prime examples of this hiring of bodyguards or drivers who help ensure their safety is illegal under section 212(1)(j). The court deemed the section to be too broad because it effected non-exploitive relationships which had no connection to the law whatsoever and hence had been struck down for the time