Bawdy House of Commons

What is wrong with sex? Seriously! How is it magically different than other things we do?

Substitute any personally provided service for sexual service in the prostitution related criminal code and see if it still makes sense.

“advertisement of accounting services” means any material — including a photographic, film, video, audio or other recording, made by any means, a visual representation or any written material — that is used to advertise accounting services contrary to section 286.4.

286.1 (1) Everyone who, in any place, obtains for consideration, or communicates with anyone for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the accounting services of a person is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years and a minimum punishment of, [...]

That being said, some of it makes sense: we should not force or coercion people of any age to engage in accounting services. We should not entice or coerce persons under the age of 18 to engage in accounting services? 

We are talking about making it non-criminal to sell accounting services but criminal to purchase accounting services. Does that make sense? I don't think so.

Lastly, I suspect we would find it contrary to public standards of decency to suggest that adults should be denied freedom of the person to have sex accounting with whomever they choose, provided it is agreed, consensual, and free from coercion.  If my suspicion is confirmed, Bill C-36 would make the House of Commons into a common bawdy-house.

(2) The definition “common bawdy-house” in subsection 197(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

“common bawdy-house” means, for the practice of acts of indecency, a place that is kept or occupied or resorted to by one or more persons;

And considering some of the other legislation being passed, I'd say those are some indecent acts.

Just thinking.