This essay first appeared in Cliterati on February 16th; I have modified it slightly for time references and to fit the format of this blog.
As you probably know unless you’ve been living in a cave, three months ago the Supreme Court of Canada overturned the laws which made the legal activity of selling sex much more difficult and dangerous, just as similar laws in the UK, India, parts of Australia and many other countries do. As I wrote in “What Next?” just two weeks after the decision, “there is nothing in it to prevent the imposition of American-style criminalization”:
Were this the United States, you can bet the legislature’s immediate response would be criminalization. However, it’s a little different in Canada…[which] has since the late 1960s maintained a [relatively] strong tradition…that “the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation”…On the other hand, the government has heavily invested its…case in neofeminist rhetoric, and recently adopted the Swedish model as its official position; several MPs have released long-winded “explanations” of the “fact” that women are permanent victims who shouldn’t be allowed to choose sex work. There is little likelihood that a system proven to increase violence and stigmatization of sex workers would pass muster under Bedford, yet at the same time it would be rather embarrassing for the government to push for the direct criminalization of sex workers after proclaiming us too weak to avoid being controlled by morally-superior clients and “pimps”…
Once politicians started returning to work after the holidays, they immediately began to issue the predictable torrent of nonsense and panic-mongering. The chief font of this flow of sewage has been Justice Minister Peter MacKay, who emitted the ludicrous (but typical) claim that Canada would become “a haven for sex tourism” (despite the fact that New Zealand and New South Wales have not), and the even more absurd statement that the sex industry is more complicated than the medical industry; he then pontificated on the “significant harms flowing from the sex trade” (ignoring the court’s finding that the laws he supports are the cause of those harms) and delivered a pitch for the abominable Swedish model (which, as pointed out above, could not possibly stand under the Bedford decision because it’s at least as harmful as the laws that were overturned, if not more so). He also boasted that the new laws would be ready “well before” the court’s December 20th deadline.
But outside of Conservative Party enclaves, evangelical Christian churches and anti-sex feminist cults, there just isn’t much support in Canada for the puritanical pretense that consensual sex magically becomes violent and sinful merely because money overtly changes hands. Young Liberals in British Columbia are pushing for their party to officially adopt a pro-decriminalization stance and have castigated Justin Trudeau and other party leaders who seem ready to get in the Swedish bed with the Conservatives. The Vancouver City Council has “unanimously passed a motion to accept recommendations intended to increase safety and services for sex workers”. British Columbia, Ontario, New Brunswick and Alberta are all declining to pursue ordinary prostitution charges, and Newfoundland has had virtually no new cases since the Himel decision in 2010. Newspapers routinely print sex worker-friendly articles, and editorials like this one are typical:
You’d think the sky was falling with all of the misconceptions circulating concerning the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision striking down our prostitution laws. No, the Supreme Court has not legalized prostitution…[which] was [already] legal…No, sex trade workers will not be flocking to your neighbourhood any more than they already have…They are already in many neighbourhoods…[seeing] clients in the warmth of their homes, apartments, condominiums and hotel/motel rooms…albeit illegally…because the use of any home, apartment or even a hotel room on a frequent basis for the purposes of prostitution violates the brothel prohibition. No, the Supreme Court decision won’t increase the number of sex trade workers…Does anyone think…[they] decide to get into the business after a thorough study of the criminal law and the legal risks of prosecution?…No, the decision won’t increase the incidence of sex slaves and human trafficking…attempting to enforce a moral code by criminalizing prostitution, or the activities surrounding it, is a waste of resources…
There’s still no way to tell how long and winding a road Canada will have to traverse before it reaches the inevitable conclusion that Canadian courts, sex worker rights activists, the UN and organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are correct in saying decriminalization is the only moral and effective model for sex work; it may be mere months, or years, or decades, and the way may be littered with the corpses of failed attempts to re-criminalize it before the busybodies eventually give up. But unlike the UK (which seems to be going in circles) or the US (which is insanely marching in the wrong direction), the Canadians at least seem to be on the right course.
Yeah but what does Rob Ford have to say about this? 😀
And … what’s wrong with sex tourism? Money is money. It’s cash coming into Canada from other countries without the need for transfer of goods to receive it. It’s an organic “redistribution” of wealth.
“the ludicrous (but typical) claim that Canada would become “a haven for sex tourism” (despite the fact that New Zealand and New South Wales have not)”
Not a terribly fair comparison – neither Australia nor New Zealand share land borders with another country.
An alternative reply might be “That actually doesn’t happen, because people see sex workers illegally wherever they happen to be”. I can see people nipping over the Canada/US border for sex, but not driving up from Texas. When a bloke wants a basic root, he wants it pretty much right now.
Perhaps even better and more to the point is “So what?”. So what if people do come to Canada to purchase an entirely legal service and engage in consensual sex with a worker? It is going to give off international sex rays?
Yeah – Oz and NZ are islands – and pretty expensive to get to also. Then again, plenty of guys go to the Philippines and Thailand. However, once they’re there – the cost is negligible as far as hotels and food (I think that’s still the case anyway). It was dirt cheap.
I just don’t see the “negatives” of sex tourism. I think people have these visions of “dirty guys” flooding into the country and raping and pillaging. That’s not true. You have to have SOME money in order to fly anywhere – and you have to be semi-squared away to have money.
Depending on the cost of flights and hotels – I’ll zip from Oslow, Norway down to Germany, Czech Republic, Poland or Romania. Normally Germany is the FAR CHEAPER option all the way around when you factor in the girls fees.
But, when I’m in these places … I don’t think people who see me actually know why I’m there … I’m just another tourist … or businessman to them.
Now – there IS a “racial” component in people’s attitudes about this kind of thing. Me? I’m white and look like any other European … but I have heard Europeans complain when the “sex tourist” is a guy from the middle-east, or Iran or … particularly Turkey. So in Germany I can see some folk thinking that the sex trade brings in all these “undesirable” Turkish men ergo … get rid of the sex trade and get rid of undesirable Turkish men.
Next time I’m in a German FKK I’ll take note of the men that are there … but in all my visits … I can’t recall a single male face at an FKK. I couldn’t tell you what nationality they are. I know there are plenty of men there with me – but 60 or more totally naked girls frolicking around me at all times seems to be “overload” for my tiny brain – and it blanks out anyone with a penis. And I’m not joking about that.
Why would you pay the slightest attention to other clients in FKKs? It just wouldn’t make sense.
Duh! Of course! European hand wringing about “sex tourism” is basically all about racism. Pretty obvious when you think about it. Germans don’t want sweaty, oily, kebab-munching garlic smelling Greeks sexing up their women, luring them into bed with (gasp!) money. And Turks? Don’t get me started, those guys are basically Arabs.
The sex trafficking hysteria is also a lot to do with race, as is drug prohibition. Like money, tribalism is the root of all kinds of evil.
Not a terribly fair comparison – neither Australia nor New Zealand share land borders with another country.
Canada is far away from Europe, the Middle East and most populated part of Asia. It’s not a cheap market, and it isn’t particularly well known either. Any increase in international clientele is going to be minimal at best.
In my opinion as a Canadian, the best approach of the government would be the same as after the SCOC defeated the abortion ban. Just do nothing and let the old, flawed laws lapse. Let the municipal governments deal with licensing(of they must) and let life go on.
And it will be very much life as normal. As an active client in the great white north I have seen little evidence of enforcement against the sex trade. The only exception has been when there has been a complaint against any of the massage parlours, which are closer to being brothels that regular massage clinics. Any that I have seen has been mostly going after the street action. Which is an approach I don’t have any issues with as the street trade can be a nuisance.
Out of sight, out of mind
I agree. Unfortunately the Conservatives may feel a need to do something for their base, especially with an election next year. I expect them to bring in a law that will probably fail before the Supreme Court in its turn, but that will be long after the election. Probably after the next one too given the time required to implement, start enforcement, be challenged in court, a couple of appeals and only then go before the Supreme court.
An ideal move would be to attempt to bring out a version of Swedish that can bet slapped down by the supreme court, look at their faithful and say “we tried but the activist judges won’t let us”. Then let the laws fall and the chips fall where they may. May achieve approval from both sides and let them win the next election which is not a bad thing if you are only looking at the economic side of the ledger.
One of the bad side effects of laws against sex work is that massage parlors and other kinds of businesses that “just might” be fronts for sex work get overregulated and harassed. This is certainly true of massage parlors here in northern California.
Streetwalkers can be a nuisance? How so? I’ve been solicited by them and never found the experience to be at all a nuisance. It’s easy to politely say “No thank you” and continue walking. Is the way they dress a problem? I don’t see how it could be since their high heels and short skirts look similar to the heels and short dresses of the young women here in Toronto’s night-club district, and no one ever complains about the way those women are dressed. I’ve heard people say that there are noise issues associated with streetwalkers, but, for a while a few years ago, I was regularly passing by the an area that they frequent (at the time of night when they were out) and it wasn’t noisy at all.
Street based sex-workers should have the same right to wear provocative clothing in public that everyone else has, and they should have the right to stand on the sidewalk and talk to anyone they want to talk to. They’re NOT a nuisance. When people say streetwalkers are a nuisance, it’s not because anything they do is actually a nuisance, it’s because most people don’t like the IDEA of prostitution, and seeing identifiable sex-workers confronts them with that idea.
And while you, as a client, “have seen little evidence of enforcement against the sex trade” here in Canada, that doesn’t mean there hasn’t been a lot of enforcement in this country.
Regarding licensing, how would you feel if we clients were the ones who had to get licenses? I’m guessing you’d be more concerned about that possibility. You should be just as concerned about sex-workers being forced to get licenses.
“Street based sex-workers should have the same right to wear provocative clothing in public that everyone else has, and they should have the right to stand on the sidewalk and talk to anyone they want to talk to.”
But wouldn’t the inverse of that be that people should have the right to walk down the street without being solicited?
Do you have the right to walk down the street without seeing or hearing advertisements from other businesses, such as billboards, placards, TV commercials from inside businesses, ads on buses, etc? A business is a business, and whether you approve of it or not is immaterial to its right to advertise. I find pharmaceutical & ambulance-chaser ads offensive, but I don’t want them banned.
To answer your question, no I don’t, but I would have thought there’s a bit of difference between a static billboard or something that can be ignored with sufficient focus, and another human being who, in speaking to you, is entitled to a response even if it’s a simple “not today, thank you.”
I wasn’t saying I approve or disapprove of a given business, and I most certainly was not saying I favor any sort of ban. Mr. Brown makes a valid point, however I was attempting to view the situation from the perspective of the non-sex worker.
I live in Canada’s biggest city and there are lots of people on the street for commercial reasons, handing out flyers, trying to sign up donors for charitable causes, doing performances, selling books, selling food, etcetera. To me, this is part of the vibrant nature of living in a city. A city that forbade all sidewalk commerce would be a sterile, over-controlled place. When I want peace and quiet, I can go home.
And if if one is accepting of all that other sidewalk commerce but objects to streetwalkers, it seems to me that hostility to the very idea of sex-work has to be the reason.
In regards to streetwalkers the nuisance is the presence of used condoms, and occasionally syringes left on the street in what is normally residential neighbourhoods. Good clients would take their trash with them, but not every body is a good client.
As to licensing, here in my Edmonton, the ladies working in the massage parlours are already licensed. Check out the body rub practitioner licenses in the Edmonton by-laws so that is the environment in which I am in. They require a criminal record check and have to sit through a 3 hour presentation. Workers in many other professions need licenses. Not that it is right but that is the way it is and I can’t see it changing as it is the municipal government getting their cut from the sex trade.
Streetwalkers would prefer to work on commercial streets so, if condoms and syringes end up in residential neighborhoods, that should, in large part, be blamed on the laws and cops that force sex-workers onto residential streets.
I’ve never been with a streetwalker, but I gather that the sex usually takes place either in the client’s car or in a nearby hotel or other sort of indoor venue, so it would be rare that condoms are left outside. A FEW streetwalkers are responsible for a FEW condoms on the ground and that’s sufficient reason to disregard the civil rights of ALL streetwalkers? That seems like an extreme position to me.
Again, with syringes, not all streetwalkers are responsible for syringes on the ground. It doesn’t make sense to punish them all for something that only a few of them are doing. Here in Toronto there’s a law requiring people who walk their dogs to pick up and dispose of any shit their dogs leave on the ground, but a few dog-walkers ignore that law. Should we outlaw ALL dog-walking because a few dog-walkers don’t pick up their dogs’ shit? Outlawing all streetwalkers because a few of them leave condoms and syringes makes as much sense as outlawing all dog-walking.
If I’m interpreting your last sentence correctly, alphapig, it sounds like we’re in agreement that licensing sex-work is morally wrong and that the real motive for doing so is governmental greed.
There is only one thing I hate more than ignorance, and that is willful ignorance. And that is exactly what the Canadian Supreme Court is demonstrating.
I don’t understand your perspective. Are you saying that the SCOC ruling is incorrect and that they could have justified putting prostitutes lives in danger by upholding the old laws?
I’m going to go out on a limb here (and please correct me if I am wrong, Girard) but I think what Girard is saying is that the SCOC is being willfully ignorant by allowing the grace period between the ruling and when the laws actually become void, as if politicians aren’t going to take advantage of that to try and impose something that might be even worse than the old laws, but designed in such a way to be invulnerable to a court striking them down.
What thequietman said. Sorry for the delay in answering, I’ve been sick with the local crud that is going around since last Sunday, and I am barely catching up.
The reality is that conservatives cannot stand the possibility that anyone is doing something but underpaid, mindless drudgery as a job, unless they are part of the “elite.
Karl Marx of all people made the point in his ‘Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts,” in 1844 [words in brackets are clarifications]:
“(1) By reducing the worker’s need to the barest and most miserable level of physical subsistence, and by reducing his activity to the most abstract mechanical movement; thus [the capitalist—RJG] says: Man has no other need either of activity or of enjoyment. For [the capitalist—RJG] declares that this life, too, is human life and existence.
(2) By counting the most meagre form of life (existence) as the standard, indeed, as the general standard—general because it is applicable to the mass of men. He turns the worker into an insensible being lacking all needs, just as he changes his activity into a pure abstraction from all activity. To him, therefore, every luxury of the worker seems to be reprehensible, and everything that goes beyond the most abstract need—be it in the realm of passive enjoyment, or a manifestation of activity—seems to him a luxury. [The economics of laissez-faire capitalism—RJG], this science of wealth, is therefore simultaneously the science of renunciation, of want, of saving and it actually reaches the point where it spares man the need of either fresh air or physical exercise. This science of marvellous industry is simultaneously the science of asceticism, and its true ideal is the ascetic but extortionate miser and the ascetic but productive slave. Its moral ideal is the worker who takes part of his wages to the savings-bank, and it has even found ready-made a servile art which embodies this pet idea: it has been presented, bathed in sentimentality, on the stage. Thus [the economics of laissez-faire capitalism—RJG]—despite its worldly and voluptuous appearance—is a true moral science, the most moral of all the sciences. Self-renunciation, the renunciation of life and of all human needs, is its principal thesis. The less you eat, drink and buy books; the less you go to the theatre, the dance hall, the public house; the less you think, love, theorise, sing, paint, fence, etc., the more you save—the greater becomes your treasure which neither moths nor rust will devour—your capital. The less you are, the less you express your own life, the more you have, i.e., the greater is your alienated life, the greater is the store of your estranged being. Everything which the political economist takes from you in life and in humanity, he replaces for you in money and in wealth; and all the things which you cannot do, your money can do. It can eat and, drink, go to the dance hall and the theatre; it can travel, it can appropriate art, learning, the treasures of the past, political power—all this it can appropriate for you—it can buy all this: it is true endowment. Yet being all this, it wants to do nothing but create itself, buy itself; for everything else is after all its servant, and when I have the master I have the servant and do not need his servant. All passions and all activity must therefore be submerged in avarice. The worker may only have enough for him to want to live, and may only want to live in order to have that.”
Marx, in spite of what so many Americans think, did not want a classless society that did nothing more than it had to. He wanted a society where everyone worked, and everyone had enough time and money to pursue activities outside of work. You know; like America in the 1970’s.