In December last year, the Supreme Court of Canada discovered that prostitutes have a constitutional right to safe, as in harmless, sex.
Two months later, Justice Minister Peter MacKay appealed to Canadians for ways to satisfy that right through laws and regulations. His public “consultation” ends tomorrow.
I don’t know who he has been consulting besides police officers and people more concerned for gender than for sex. I don’t know what advice he’s been given, but it probably hasn’t helped much, for the new laws already are being drafted and his mind appears made up.
“We believe that prostitution is intrinsically degrading and harmful to vulnerable persons, especially women,” MacKay declared in January.
So does he intend to outlaw the sale of sexual favours? Not quite.
“We intend to protect women and protect society generally from exploitation and abuse,” he announced.
I applaud the minister’s determination to protect women, though he seems inclined to use a pretty broad brush for the size of canvas represented by prostitution.
I feel uneasy, frankly, about his intention — about any government’s intention — to protect society generally from something that threatens in particular circumstances.
There’s no doubt that some men and women who sell sexual favours are in need of protection — drug addicts, the very poor, the mentally ill. But they require and deserve protection whether they prostitute themselves or not.
There’s no doubt, either, that violence and crime, organized or disorganized, can be associated with prostitution, organized or disorganized. But crimes need tackling whatever their motivation.
Well-motivated organizations like Defend Dignity think prostitution should be outlawed because they see no difference between buying sex for gratification and buying sex for abuse. “Prostitution is violence against women,” Defend Dignity declares.
It sees no difference between selling a sexual favour and turning the seller into a commodity, a useful or convenient thing like a sofa. No wonder women’s dignity needs defending.
So the government is being urged to adopt what’s called the Nordic model: Selling sexual favours isn’t a crime but buying them is, which seems, at least, illogical.
I can’t understand, and I don’t think the Supreme Court would either, how prostitutes, determined to ply their trade, will be better protected when it’s made more furtive and isolated — when the customer’s urgency to avoid detection reduces the ability of the merchant to assess risk.
Some people think making prostitution legal, but regulated, is the way to go. But regulated how? By zoning red-light districts? By licensing prostitutes who pass health examinations? By courses of instruction in approved techniques?
How many street workers would accept any of this?
I think New Zealand has it right with its Prostitution Reform Act of 2003, the purpose of which is to “decriminalize (while not endorsing or morally sanctioning)” prostitution.
Prostitutes and those operating brothels must adopt and promote safer sex — in the health sense. Advertising services on public media or signs are outlawed. Local governments can regulate the location of brothels to reduce nuisance or exclude those incompatible with the existing character of a neighbourhood.
Prostitutes must not be compelled by threats or promises to engage in their trade. Brothels are subject to health inspections and their operators to certification renewable annually.
Nothing prevents individual prostitutes from taking clients home or to a hotel.
Government reports in 2008 and 2011 found no evidence of a specific link between crime and prostitution or of human trafficking. They found that prostitutes were better able to avoid potentially dangerous clients and received better protection from police.
There’s still evidence of prudery about the sex trade. But it’s natural for those with a particular need.
Daniel Defoe, the creator of Moll Flanders, expressed his view bluntly:
“He or She who, with that slight and superficial Affection, Ventures into the Matrimonial Vow, are to me little more than legal Prostitutes.”
Man and woman are designed to couple, though alternatives may be explored. The survival of their species depends upon the sex act, though alternatives are being explored.
Some have the luck and good management to satisfy a primal urge in convenience, safety, comfort — even in love.
Sadly, some don’t. Prostitution shouldn’t be a crime — for anyone.
