Sex clubs are now legal, so
why can't prostitutes work in
the safety of their own
abodes?
By ALAN YOUNG
This past year ended with a big bang: the Supreme Court
of Canada gave its seal of approval to sex clubs and
orgies. It's exciting to see the law slowly opening up to
allow people to act on their sexual fantasies without
state officials running in to tell everyone to cover up.
And it's about time the Supreme Court recognized that
we don't need judges and politicians to set standards
of sexual propriety.
Of course, some commentators have moaned about
the court giving licence to Sodom and Gomorrah, but
I suspect the criticism comes from people who can't
get a kick-start even with Viagra.
Basically, the court ruled that the state must now
prove that certain activities are harmful before the
activity will be deemed indecent and illegal.
The key to the Montreal orgy case was the fact that
entry to the club was restricted to members who
had been warned about the activities inside.
But is there truly a difference between paying for
club membership with the expectation of getting
your rocks off and paying directly for this pleasure?
If privacy is the key to avoiding legal intrusion,
then shouldn't the same consideration apply to
prostitutes, whose security and safety is
compromised because the current law does
not allow licensed bawdy houses?
Robert Pickton, the BC pig farmer who
allegedly murdered dozens of prostitutes, will
come to trial later this year, and as that trial
unfolds,
Project KARE, an RCMP task force, will continue
to work feverishly on solving the disappearance
or death of more than 70 women in the Prairies
who were involved in what police have called
"high-risk lifestyles."
While the recent Supreme Court decision may
have ended the year with a wet dream,
the Pickton case will be a rude awakening, shifting
the debate to a more sinister and troubling aspect
of the sex trade: those who die plying it.
No one will ever really know how many prostitutes
are killed every year, because they often just go
missing and no one cares enough to look for them.
Official statistics show that between 1991 and
2001, 73 prostitutes were murdered while
working the streets, 70 of those victims women.
Only a handful were murdered by pimps;
they prefer to terrorize the living.
The vast majority were killed by clients. Sex trade
workers have had an enormous fall from grace
from the sacred temple harlots of ancient times to
the marginalized outcasts exposed to all manner
of violence, abuse and ridicule of today.
In October 2003, a House of Commons
subcommittee was established to review prostitution
laws and recommend changes that would
"reduce the exploitation of and violence against
sex-trade workers."
The subcommittee will report this year, and I
hope it has the courage to admit that we will
continue to dig up dead bodies of prostitutes
on pig farms and in secluded urban alleys if we
maintain imbecilic criminal prohibitions on
commercial sex.
It is perfectly legal to work as a prostitute, but a
wide array of over-broad and outdated laws
make it impossible for prostitutes to work in a
safe and secure environment. Bawdy-house
laws force them onto the streets, and laws
relating to procuring and living off the avails
prevent them from having managers,
bodyguards or union representatives.
If we remove the blunt instrument of criminal law,
a proper regulatory approach can be undertaken
so that hookers can oust their pimps in exchange
for a safe working environment. The pimp of today
may become the union steward of tomorrow.
It remains unclear what it is we hope to
accomplish with our current prohibitions on
commercial sex. I can understand the concerns
of property owners and members of the
community who don't want their street corners
turned into drive-through sex shops.
I would not want people copulating in my back
yard (depending upon who they are), but this is
a matter of proper regulation and the
construction of red-light districts.
Prostitution may be offensive to some, just as
orgies aren't everyone's cup of tea, but we
have to recognize the reality of diverse sexual
ethics.
You don't have to read Freud to know that
our species is always on the lookout for
sexual outlets, and when these don't present
themselves, some will go to the marketplace to
buy a fleeting moment of pleasure.
There is nothing the state can do about this.
We call prostitution the world's oldest profession
for good reason.
Every time a prostitute is arrested, two more
take her place. There's a bottomless market for
their services. I'm sure some cops, lawyers and
judges sometimes enter this market, but they
can never admit it because it would undercut
their authority to arrest, prosecute and punish
those who gave them release the day before.
Whether one pays to participate in an orgy or
to hire the services of a prostitute, I see no
reason to bring in the heavy guns of the
criminal law. When it comes to sex, I see
only one legal rule of any real importance:
for sex to be lawful there only needs to be
consent, and it should not matter whether consent
is secured by direct payment or weeks of
expensive courtship with fine dining and false
promises.
The criminal law has never stopped anyone
from paying for fellatio, but it has made the
modern prostitute easy prey for a wide array
of predatory criminals.
Canada, please explain the difference between
sex clubs and this?
Removing them from the residential areas and from
our street corners... will this work?
link:
http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2006-01-05/news_feature.php
No comments:
Post a Comment