Sentences with phrase «purpose of prostitution»

Responses to a question about the purpose of prostitution laws were equally emphatic.

But the Mann Act, passed by Congress in 1910 to address prostitution, human trafficking and what was viewed at the time as immorality in general, makes it a crime to transport someone between states for the purpose of prostitution.

A more difficult call was whether to charge Spitzer with transporting Ashley Dupré across state lines for the purposes of prostitution.

Somewhat perversely, in the area in which women are arguably most in need of protection — the common street - walker — the law prohibiting communicating for the purposes of prostitution was upheld and remains in full force.

Justice Himel of the Ontario Superior Court, in a decision grounded in evidence from Canada and abroad about the extreme harms faced by sex workers, held that the provisions restricting indoor sex work (or «bawdy houses»), living on the avails of prostitution, and communicating in public for the purpose of prostitution were unconstitutional.

However, the court was divided on the constitutionality of s. 213 (1)(c) of the Criminal Code, which prohibits public communication for the purpose of prostitution.

As most of us are already aware, tomorrow the SCC will hear arguments in the Bedford case and will ponder the criminality of certain acts related to sex work, namely communicating for the purposes of prostitution, being found in a common bawdy house and living off the avails of prostitution.

Trafficking for the purpose of prostitution became the subject of a United Nations convention in 1949, amplifying an international agreement for «Suppression of the White Slave Traffic» of 1904.

Moreover, Justice Susan Himel ruled that the laws that forbid running a bawdy house, communicating for the purpose of prostitution, and living off the avails of prostitution were unconstitutional and are not in accord with the principles of fundamental justice.

However, several activities associated with prostitution are illegal: including communicating in a public place for the purpose of prostitution, keeping a common bawdy -LSB-...]

modernize the offence that prohibits the procurement of persons for the purpose of prostitution;

Three criminal laws were at issue: the laws preventing bawdy houses or brothels (s. 210), living on the avails of prostitution (s. 212 (1)(j)-RRB- and communicating in public for the purposes of prostitution (s. 213)(1)(c)-RRB-.

In addition to the bawdy house provision, they challenged provisions of the Code which prohibit living on the avails of prostitution and communicating for the purpose of prostitution in public.

A third provision, which prohibited communicating in public for the purposes of prostitution, was upheld.

The living on the avails provision criminalizes the use of support and security staff funded by the proceeds of the prostitution, regardless of whether the relationship is an exploitative one; and the communicating provision prohibits any attempt by street prostitutes to screen potential customers by speaking with those customers in a public place for the purpose of prostitution.

Finally, the communicating for the purpose of prostitution law had a negative impact on the safety and lives of sex trade workers since it prevented them from «screening potential clients for intoxication and propensity to violence [and was therefore] grossly disproportionate response to the possibility of nuisance caused by street prostitution.»

Finally, a majority of the Court disagreed with the lower court's ruling that the Criminal Code provision prohibiting communicating for the purposes of prostitution also violated s. 7 of the Charter.

The Sexual Offences Act 1985 (SOA 1985) was aimed at kerb crawling: s 1 makes it an offence to solicit another person or people for the purpose of prostitution from a motor vehicle in a public place or in a street.

He asked the court to invalidate Criminal Code provisions that made it illegal to run a bawdy house, communicate for the purposes of prostitution, and live off the avails of prostitution.

SOA 1985, s 2 created an offence of persistent soliciting in a street or public place for the purpose of prostitution.

The Street Offences Act 1959 includes offences of loitering and soliciting in a public place for the purpose of prostitution.

These provisions made it illegal to run a bawdy house, communicate for the purposes of prostitution, and live off the avails of prostitution.

A Justice of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice agreed with these arguments and found the prohibitions on communication for the purpose of prostitution, living off the avails of prostitution, and keeping a common bawdy house, to be unconstitutional.

Communication for the purpose of prostitution, meanwhile, «allows prostitutes to screen prospective clients for intoxication or propensity to violence, which can reduce the risks they face.»

[59] Here, the applicants argue that the prohibitions on bawdy - houses, living on the avails of prostitution, and communicating in public for the purposes of prostitution, heighten the risks they face in prostitution — itself a legal activity...

For example, the Ontario Court of Appeal recently ruled in Bedford v Canada that the prohibition on common bawdy - houses for the purpose of prostitution was unconstitutional and must be struck down because the laws do not accord with the principles of fundamental justice enshrined in section 7 of the Charter.

It was at Old City Hall that I won my first trial — a communicating for the purposes of prostitution.

The judge struck down three sections of the Criminal Code that make it illegal to operate a «common bawdy house,» to profit from prostitution - related activities or «communicates» on the street for the purpose of prostitution.

Proceedings were brought by three individuals who had been convicted, many years ago, of offences of loitering or soliciting in a street or public place for the purpose of prostitution, contrary to section 1 of the Street Offences Act 1959.

Instead, Justice Susan Himel will have to decide whether the three sections of the Criminal Code (which prohibit communicating for the purposes of prostitution, keeping a common bawdy house, and living off the avails of prostitution) violate the s. 7 guarantee of security of the person and / or infringe on freedom of expression.