Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2012 ONCA ... - York University

Page: 55in which, the respondents can conduct the very dangerous activity they havechosen.[123] This submission must fail. It implies that those who choose to engage inthe sex trade are for that reason not worthy of the same constitutional protectionas those who engage in other dangerous, but legal enterprises. Parliament haschosen not to criminalize prostitution. In the eyes of the criminal law, prostitutionis as legal as any other non-prohibited commercial activity.A claim that acriminal law prohibition increases the risk of physical harm to persons whoengage in prostitution must, for the purpose of the security of the personanalysis, be examined in the same way as any other claim that a criminal lawprohibition increases the risk of physical harm to persons engaged in any otherlawful commercial activity.[124] Nor, in our view, is the appellants‟ position assisted by the claim that whileParliament has chosen not to criminalize prostitution, it has chosen to try toeradicate prostitution through criminalizing many related activities. We addressthis submission later in these reasons when considering the application of theprinciples of fundamental justice. Suffice it to say here that we do not accept thatone of the objectives of the challenged legislation is to eradicate prostitutionthrough the criminalization of related activity. However, even if that were thelegislative intent, the respondents‟ security of the person interest wouldnonetheless be infringed by the legislation. The legislative objectives do not play