[SWAF-Potluck] Prostitution bill legislated morality

[Andy Sorfleet]

http://www.torontosun.com/
TORONTO SUN
Saturday, June 7, 2014

Anthony, Furey, QMI Agency



Prostitution bill legislated morality

[photo caption]
Canada's Justice Minister Peter MacKay takes part in a news conference
on Parliament Hill in Ottawa June 4, 2014. (REUTERS/Chris Wattie)

Canada's prostitution debate isn't really about prostitution. It's
about whether we want to be passing bills legislating morality.

The old fashioned answer was yes. It's not so clear anymore. That's a
good thing.

On Wednesday Justice Minister Peter MacKay tabled Bill C-36 in
response to the Supreme Court's December decision knocking down
prostitution laws.

Laws against operating a bawdy house, living off the avails of
prostitution and communicating in public with clients were deemed
harmful to sex workers. The government had a year to come up with new
ones.

While some hoped the Conservatives would go more hands off with sex
commerce, the provisions in the new bill only tighten the government's
grasp.

"Today our government is making prostitution illegal for the first
time," MacKay said in a statement.

But the bill, as NDP leader Thomas Mulcair said in the House Thursday,
"simply muddies the waters."

It outright criminalizes purchasing sex. It's a version of the Nordic
model – shifting criminality from the sex seller to buyer. It's hard
to see, as some sex workers have argued, how criminalizing half their
line of work brings them out of the darkness.

It also "prohibits receiving a material benefit that derived from the
commission of an offence," bans advertising sex services and
communicating about it in public or somewhere "that is or is next to a
place where persons under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to
be present."

Just imagine the judicial interpretation that'll go into wading
through that last one.

While it's certainly within the realm of government to regulate
commerce in the public square, it's usually not the federal government
that does this. This is more municipal bylaw territory, like with
massage parlours.

The best part of the news isn't even in the actual bill. MacKay
announced $20 million to help sex workers exit their field. Few would
disagree that where the government does have a role in prostitution is
in helping those who don't want to be there.

That funding should be focused on connecting with those who were
forced into prostitution either by pimps or to fuel their addiction.

But the text of the bill lumps all degrees of prostitution together –
ranging from the otherwise safe and law-abiding sex worker field to
those who are victims of human trafficking, child prostitution, etc.

This should come as no surprise. The bill's preamble makes it clear
that the government's first aim is to end "the exploitation that is
inherent in prostitution" and "the social harm caused by the
objectification of the human body and the commodification of sexual
activity." They're clear that "it is important to protect human
dignity."

Well it's not exactly dignified to apply this language to the
percentage doing it by choice. It's condescending.

It's clear this bill is really about making moral judgments. Plain and
simple. Rescuing the exploited is not the first priority.

One factor in crafting these laws was the response from more than
30,000 Canadians to an online poll.

Should selling sexual services be a criminal offence? Sixty-six
percent said no, 34% yes.

What about purchasing sexual services? Here a majority come down
against sex commerce – with 56% saying make it a criminal offence.

But that's a very slim majority to justify such a sweeping legislative change.

(Although these online campaigns are bogus to begin with, as the bulk
of respondents are activists from both sides with vested interests.)

Do we even want moral issues, particularly sexual ones, left up to
ever-changing social trends?

In a recent column, I wrote about a group of radical feminists who
uncharacteristically sided with social conservatives in viewing
prostitution as inherently wrong and violent against women. It fit in
with their ideas of patriarchy and male privilege.

But another group called the Feminist Coalition disagrees. They're
against the Nordic model and, in their affidavit to get intervener
status in the SCOC case, called for "full human and labour rights for
sex workers."

In other words, a job's a job and let's not make second-class citizens
out of people who choose this line of work.

They argue "the right to autonomy for sex-working women is critical to
determine their equality rights under law."

It's refreshing to see old school feminist arguments like this make a
comeback. They focus on empowerment – which is the original purpose of
the feminist movement. Today's radicals, who seem to capture a
disproportionate amount of public attention, are more interested in
entrenching victimhood.

This split within the feminist community just proves people can come
up with whatever hodge-podge justifications for restricting people's
freedoms they want. Such is the ebb and flow of moral arguments.
They're not necessarily rational.

If you instead view the matter through the prism of consent and
personal liberty it becomes much clearer: Trading money for sex
between consenting adults? Keep the government out of it. Trafficking?
Involving children? No way. Bring down the full force of the law. It's
a shame the government fails to draw this needed line.