[SWAF-Potluck] The state re-enters the bedroom with new legislation on prostitution

[Andy Sorfleet]

My apologies for posting this twice. The previous email missed half
the article. AS

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/
NATIONAL POST
Wednesday, June 4, 2014

Jesse Kline, Full Comment



The state re-enters the bedroom with new legislation on prostitution

[photo caption]
In a free society, people should be able to engage in any voluntary
transaction. photo: SIMON HAYTER/NATIONAL POST

Pierre Trudeau had many deeply flawed ideas, but he was right about
one thing: "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the
nation."

The way this country deals with prostitution has traditionally
followed the idea that the government has no business interfering in
Canadians' private sex lives, so long as economic transactions for
sexual services are conducted in private. Before the Supreme Court
stuck down many of Canada's prostitution laws late last year, selling
sex was perfectly legal, but practices that took place in public --
such as negotiating on the street and running a brothel -- were
illegal.

This was better than criminalizing prostitution completely, because it
gave sex workers and johns a legal way to engage in a voluntary
economic transaction. But it also made life much more dangerous for
those who worked in the sex trade.

The ban on keeping a common bawdy house forced many sex workers into
the streets, denying them the opportunity to work indoors, away from
inner-city violence. The prohibition on living off the avails of
prostitution likewise prevented sex workers from hiring drivers and
bodyguards. The prohibition on communicating for the purposes of
prostitution meant that many of those involved in the sex trade were
unable to properly screen their clients.

It was for these reasons that the Supreme Court ruled that the
"restrictions on prostitution put the safety and lives of prostitutes
at risk and are therefore unconstitutional." Yet in one fell swoop,
the federal Conservatives have now invaded the bedrooms of Canadians,
and shown they have little regard for economic freedom or the safety
of those working the sex trade.

"The sale and purchase of sex has never been illegal in Canada,"
Justice Minister Peter MacKay said on Wednesday. "That changes today."

As expected, his Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act
adopts an approach similar to the Nordic model that outlaws the
purchasing of sex, while allowing prostitution itself to remain legal
(if an economic transaction can be called "legal" when one side of it
is outlawed).

Ironically, the bill does little to make life safer for sex workers.
The prohibition on keeping a common bawdy house, which the Supreme
Court said "prevents street prostitutes from resorting to a safe haven
… while a suspected serial killer prowls the streets," remains in
force. It is also still illegal to communicate "for the purposes of
selling sexual services … in a public place." Even advertising those
services on the Internet will, in many cases, be illegal.

In striking down Canada's prostitution laws, the Supreme Court's
reasoning centred on the fact that the restrictions surrounding sex
work were unconstitutional because the practice itself was perfectly
legal. The government seems to be hoping that by making the
transaction illegal for one-half of participants, its new law will
hold up to future legal challenges. This, however, is far from
certain. And it doesn't make it good policy.

[pull quote]
It's fundamentally illogical to say that people have the right to sell
the product of their labour but that someone else does not have the
right to buy it

A peer-reviewed study conducted in British Columbia and published
earlier this week in the British Medical Journal Open found that an
experiment in Vancouver to target pimps and johns instead of sex
workers did not make the lives of those involved in the sex trade any
safer.

"Sex workers continued to mistrust police, had to rush screening
clients and were displaced to outlying areas with increased risks of
violence, including being forced to engage in unprotected sex," reads
the study. "While rhetorically powerful and politically appealing,
there is a fundamental conceptual inconsistency in policies that
criminalize clients and purport to prioritize the safety of sex
workers."

Indeed, I cannot think of any other service for which selling is
legal, but purchasing is not. It's fundamentally illogical to say that
people have the right to sell the product of their labour -- the
philosophical basis upon which all voluntary economic transactions are
based -- but that someone else does not have the right to buy it. In a
free society, with free speech and free markets, people should have
the freedom to engage in any voluntary transaction that does not hurt
anyone else -- no matter how distasteful it may seem to some.

The Tories have doubled down on a policy that has made life more
dangerous for sex workers and done nothing to decrease the prevalence
of prostitution in the countries where it has been tried.

And in an unfortunate turn of events for the advocates who thought the
Supreme Court's decision scored a blow for freedom, safety and
security, there is a good chance they will be worse off because of
this law, and be forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars and
waste a considerable amount of time challenging it in court.