The Issue that Won’t Go Away

      For well over a decade, legal, political and public opinion have been softening on the issue of prostitution. Some years ago, the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court questioned its illegality, then at last year’s end the high court itself, The Supreme Court of Canada, ruled in favor of dropping the laws forbidding it. Public opinion studies reflect a slow trend in favour of the court’s opinion. That said, it’s by no means certain that the Harper government, with its strong base of support from social conservatives –- not to mention the evangelical conservative Prime Minister himself — will agree to it. So, wide open prostitution is far from being what political watchers like to call “a done deal”; in fact far from it.

    A legitimate case, pragmatically speaking, can be made for it if the Harper government is of the disposition: it has a majority; the NDP opposition is most likely to (a) back the Supreme Court ruling with (b) some qualifications you may not like; the Liberals will not stand in the way. Nonetheless, whatever happens, the law must in some way be involved, overseeing regulation or safety. Hence what takes place is a major and daunting question. I agree with the federal court ruling but am far from persuaded that will “solve” the dreary issues that have surrounded this situation -– on all sides from the prostitutes to the police — for century after century.

     One example of the latter: a decade or more ago, one of Toronto’s most respected police chiefs in a long interview, took his time describing to me the singular frustration police experienced back then on aspects of this issue.  The only time he ever considered quitting, he said, was on the occasions when he had to solicit street prostitutes when in fact he was out to arrest them. “The weeping, the pleading, the humiliation as I placed poverty stricken women into a paddy wagon, I can’t forget. And it accomplished little, maybe nothing.” As for collaring the so called high end “escorts” he saw another questionable aspect that virtually negated its value: the costs that almost always achieved little or nothing and were paid from the public purse. A few sentences provide a mildly theatrical window on why he said this:       

         A detective of the now defunct “morality squad “is assigned to uncover and arrest a certain lady. (Please keep in mind for this paragraph that you are paying his salary plus, of course, his expenses.) He phones the yellow page number and invites her to dinner, one costing about $250. After dinner, the theatricality begins. He invites her to, well, you know where. She’s sorry but she can’t: she has to wash her hair. He says it’s just for a drink. She sighs and goes in, sits down. More talk and then, after he places $200 on the coffee table, she shakes her head. He places a bit more and she shrugs -– after all she says she doesn’t do these things -– but, in a minute or two, says well okay. Whereupon our great detective has the pleasure of arresting her as she weeps. (Don’t feel badly since this will give him lots to do for many weeks: filling forms, then filling more.) And let’s never forget the lawyers. Also the prosecutors and the judges. They’ll have meetings. Of course. Several. Then comes the trial at which the judge will listen if he/she stays awake. But as the afternoon wears on the judge (I know several) will probably take a deep breath, glance at the schedule and adjourn things to a date about three months hence.  So it often goes, until one day the issue somehow seems to drop from sight. I wonder how much it cost the public?  I wonder what all this back and forth achieved?  I have no idea whatsoever. All I know is that it really bothered the former Toronto Police Chief who brought it up with me in the first place. As the young used to say: “go figure…”

      That’s not to say the answer is legalization. Maybe. Maybe not. For legalization brings its own set of issues. (Not to mention whether the Harper government, backed, in large part, by social conservatives will actually countenance it seriously.) Even in imagining it, I see a huge library of bylaws, restrictions, definitions and penalties, enough to keep courtrooms of lawyers and inspectors, regulators and agents, occupied for a lifetime.  First, municipalities must go along. Then, get ready, the so-called Red Light Districts (or whatever less repugnant label they get) must be chosen. How about yours? Bureaucrats will work until dawn, drawing up regulations that other bureaucrats approve or amend or alter, after which various supervisors or overseers, will apply them and other agents overseeing their application will then revise them. We must not forget the police. Why? Many reasons but here’s one: When Barbara and I  visited, some years ago, the beautiful town of Linz in Austria, the tourism director took us on a walk including the Red Light district where she thereupon mentioned heavy fines handed to any woman caught working outside the district. Enough. Regulators rule. You get the picture and the point.

        “But,” its advocates say, “look at Amsterdam, it’s had legalized prostitution for centuries.” I know, and it now wants to get out of much of it. Why? Crime. A couple of years ago, we were there on an assignment and the Dutch, being gregarious warm hearted people, especially to Canadians,  insisted we go with a very experienced guide to the Red Light district where the women, virtually naked, stand in “the windows” smiling their aggressive invitation to all males passing by. (I don’t like “The Windows” -– after all I am a Canadian — but maybe it’s just me.) As for the crime, our guide, forthright as Dutch guides are, insisted that while many of the Dutch women truly like the work, one side of the game, the global side with its “imported” women, is seriously corrupt: drug trading, money laundering and human trafficking. (See http://www.kennethbagnell.com/?p=526 ) It’s virtually impossible to accept any of these practices but I expect they exist beyond Amsterdam and very probably call for more public and police attention in Canada.

        What should Canada do? There are more puzzling questions than reasonable answers. But for me it’s time to accept the 2013 decision of the country’s Supreme Court, a thoughtful decision that has not yet been given thoughtful consideration by the Harper government. As for me personally, I’ve now come to believe that for many years Canada, arguing within itself on this question, has been engaged in what some call a “Zero Sum Game.” It got us nowhere. In today’s culture, a woman engaged in this lifestyle is but a few steps from being a dancing instructor to a client. As I write this reactions to a Globe & Mail article by a young woman, university educated, who practiced the trade in difficult times. The large majority of writers are sympathetic to her choice of a temporary career.  So, sad though it be for some of us, it’s time to accommodate this aspect of life as it is today. One thing we should do: discourage collectively all we can those who contemplate this course of life for all the reasons we’ve read about. One thing we should not do: criminalize those who do what we feel they should not do. It’s time to accommodate them.

All past blogs are archived on my website: your comments are welcome here: www.kennethbagnell.com.