Prostitution Reference: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 04:35, 27 June 2016 editGuy1890 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers29,093 edits Some minor edits.← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:35, 27 June 2016 edit undoGuy1890 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers29,093 edits Added a tag.Next edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{refimprove}}

	'''''Reference re ss. 193 & 195.1(1)(c) of Criminal Code (Canada)''''', (the '''Prostitution Reference'''), 1 S.C.R. 1123 is a decision of the ] on the right to ] under ] of the '']'', and on ]. The Court held that the criminal code provision that prohibited communication for the purpose of engaging in prostitution was in violation of the right to freedom of expression; however, it could be justified under ] of the ''Charter'' and so it was upheld.		'''''Reference re ss. 193 & 195.1(1)(c) of Criminal Code (Canada)''''', (the '''Prostitution Reference'''), 1 S.C.R. 1123 is a decision of the ] on the right to ] under ] of the '']'', and on ]. The Court held that the criminal code provision that prohibited communication for the purpose of engaging in prostitution was in violation of the right to freedom of expression; however, it could be justified under ] of the ''Charter'' and so it was upheld.

Revision as of 04:35, 27 June 2016

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Prostitution Reference" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Reference re ss. 193 & 195.1(1)(c) of Criminal Code (Canada), (the Prostitution Reference), 1 S.C.R. 1123 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the right to freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and on prostitution in Canada. The Court held that the criminal code provision that prohibited communication for the purpose of engaging in prostitution was in violation of the right to freedom of expression; however, it could be justified under section 1 of the Charter and so it was upheld.

The majority on a 5:2 split, with both women dissenting, found that the purpose of eliminating prostitution was a valid goal and that the provision was rationally connected and proportional to that goal. Accordingly, the provision was upheld.