[SWAF-Potluck] Editorial: A shameful prostitution law

[Andy Sorfleet]

http://ottawacitizen.com/
OTTAWA CITIZEN
Friday, June 6, 2014

Ottawa Citizen Editorial Board



Editorial: A shameful prostitution law

[photo caption]
Justice Minister Peter MacKay takes questions a news conference on
Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Wednesday, June 4, 2014.
Sean Kilpatrick / CP

The most shameful thing about the Conservative government's
prostitution bill is its political cynicism and callous indifference.

The Supreme Court ruling in December, and the evidence that informed
it, showed plainly that sex trade workers are at risk because of laws
that make it difficult for them to vet clients and work in safe
places. The government's new law does not even bother to try to
address those harms. It doubles down on them, making it more dangerous
for prostitutes to communicate with clients in advance.

There are two possible interpretations of the government's motives.

The most disturbing possibility: it believes the Court will strike
down the new law, but in the meantime, the government can gain
political points for a few years by picking a fight with the courts
and the opposition parties. Such a strategy is an insult to the very
notion of the rule of law -- not to mention a waste of public money.
To draft a law in the belief it likely runs counter to the
Constitution would be arbitrary and despotic.

The second possibility is better, but not by much. The government
might believe that the new law will pass a Supreme Court challenge --
not because it reduces or eliminates any of the harms, but only
because it provides new justifications for those harms.

In other words, it is arguing that it's acceptable to put prostitutes
at risk because the law is now motivated by what the government sees
as the prostitutes' best interests. The philosophy behind this law is
that it is sometimes okay for a government to draft laws that endanger
consenting adults engaging in legal behaviour (the selling of sex
remains legal), because those people don't know what's good for them
and the government does.

To believe this, one would have to put one's fingers in one's ears any
time sex workers speak, but the government seems more than willing to
do that.

The government is coupling its harsh new laws with $20 million in new
program funding, with an “emphasis on funding programs that can help
individuals exit prostitution.” In other words, the government will
help sex workers, but only if they get out of the business.

It's 2014, and our government is more interested in telling people
what to do with their lives -- and in mass surveillance -- than in
protecting citizens from overreaching laws. This from the party that
killed the long-form census and the gun registry because of its
ostensible belief in personal freedom. If there are any libertarians
left among Conservative voters, they ought to be outraged -- and
looking for a new political home.


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Comments: William Henry Rice

And hidden deep inside this legally and morally bankrupt legislative
bundle is C-36's provision 164.1 - less than 100 words that allow the
Attorney General to determine what is deemed (the law's wording)
"intimate", "voyeuristic", or "obscene" - broad undefined qualifiers
empowering a government official to declare material from 'Lady
Chatterley's Lover' to the selfie you sent to your spouse 'obscene,'
'illegal' and punishable under federal criminal law. Welcome to the
1950s - courtesy of the Harper government.