Canada's top court has overturned all restrictions on prostitution
>"It makes no difference that the conduct of pimps and johns is the immediate source of the harms suffered by prostitutes," McLachlin wrote.
>
>"The impugned laws deprive people engaged in a risky, but legal, activity of the means to protect themselves against those risks."<p>One of the things I've noticed reading newspaper articles and websites regarding legal rulings in Canada (the full depth of my research, admittedly), is that the reasoning seems to be governed by the judges' personal opinions of what would be fair ("we must protect the prostitutes from harm"), whereas American rulings seem to rely more upon the interpretation of texts such as their constitution. Is this an accurate characterization? If so is this a result of a differently structured legal system, or just a "cultural" difference?