Beginning in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, October 2009, the case of Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford began (Canada v. Bedford, 2013, p.4). The applicants were three women: Terri-Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitch and Valerie Scott (Canada v. Bedford, 2013, p.3). These women brought fourth and argued that Canada’s prostitution laws were unconstitutional (Canada v. Bedford, 2013, p.5). In the constitution: outlawing public communication for the purposes of prostitution, operating a bawdy house or living off the avails of prostitution is illegal and criminal charges can be filed (Canada v. Bedford, 2013, p.5). clients”, as well they are “alleging prohibition on communicating in public for purposes of prostitution infringes freedom of expression guarantee” (Canada v. Bedford, 2013, p.5). Justice Susan Himel gave her decision after one year of deliberation (Canada v. Bedford, 2013, p.6). She struck down Canada’s prostitution laws: sections 210, 212(1)(j) and 213(1)(c) (Canada v. Bedford, 2013, p.6). Justice Himel allowed a stay of 30 days to permit appeal (Canada v. Bedford, 2013, p.56). Final result after going through the Court Appeal for Ontario, on Friday, December 20th 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Canada’s remaining prostitution laws, finding that bans on street soliciting, brothels and people living off the avails of prostitution create severe dangers for vulnerable women (Canada v. Bedford, 2013, p.79). THEORY A OVERVIEW Society has and always will be effected and influenced by gender (Bibbings et al. 2000, p.1). Gender can effect who commits crimes and what crimes they commit, even authorized personal of the law are influenced by gender when deciding who might have committed the crimes that are alleged (Bibbings et al. 2000, p.1). Gender stereotypes almost dictate the application and even the formulation of core criminal law concepts such as actus reus, means rea and the various defences to liability (Bibbings et al. 2000, p.1). In the past, criminal law had been evaluated and communicated as if its gender blind and both the targets and criminals of crimes are unrelated to the way the law is applied (Bibbings et al. 2000, p.1). Certain crimes can only be committed by one sex, and certain defenses can only be used by one sex (Bibbings et al. 2000, p.1). Only recently, have feminists begun to deconstruct the ‘maleness’ of criminal law (Bibbings et al. 2000, p.1). Feminism critiques of criminal law rules, combinations of insights and disciplines leave a very patchy imprint in mainstream criminal law, except in obvious areas such as sexual assault and rape, feminism cannot be ignored (Bibbings et al. 2000, p.4). And those obvious regions of feminism is enough for most textbooks to completely ignore and not even mention the fact that law is heavily influenced by gender (Bibbings et al. 2000, p.4). Feminism focuses and fights to show society that there are huge gender variations in Criminal Law, doing so by providing evidence and ‘dangerous’ supplements that challenges the gender neutrality (Bibbings et al. 2000, p.4). APPLICATION OF THEORY A: When examining the case of Canada v. Bedford in a Feminism lens, it is obvious that this whole occurrence is an example the main focus of what feminism is trying to do for modern society. Feminists are trying to show the world and rid it of all the unequal sexism in Law, so this case is a big step in the right direction. In English law, most pros