It can be claimed that western liberal democracy emerges from the insight that a person is sufficiently competent to choose for himself and his family his own religious beliefs and practices.
For some, the history of western liberal democracy can be described as the struggle to expand our definition of who counts as a person and the struggle to increase the number of aspects of living about which a person is thought to be sufficiently competent to choose for him or herself. For others, the history of western liberal democracy can be described as the struggle to resist these changes.
I have yet to encounter any evidence which falsifies my belief that most persons most of the time are sufficiently competent to decide for him or herself whether or not s/he should exchange sex for money or money for sex. I am open to the idea that it may be appropriate for the government to regulate these kinds of exchanges, however, I don’t think there’s any reason to believe the government should necessarily regulate them.
On any given night, very many men and women engage in a variety of sexual acts for a variety of reasons and I don’t see why the exchange of money should necessarily warrant government scrutiny. If there are legitimate reasons to regulate the sexual activities of persons, those reasons will apply to all persons whether or not they exchange sex for money and money for sex.
This is just to say: the Federal and Ontario government’s attempt to save our incoherent and unjustifiable prostitution laws is misguided and at odds with the notion that a person is sufficiently competent to choose for him or herself how to live his or her own life.