Sex and the Supreme Court of Canada
Comments. Considerations. Questions.
By Kenneth Bagnell
Many of us recall the God is Dead movement of the 1960s. God did not die. But sometimes I think He may come close to it in these more recent years — just trying to satisfy everybody. I mean on the laws around prostitution here and pretty well everywhere. After all it’s been around a long time from the birth of human beings. In any case, the subject in itself is good for readability. Moreover, journalists like provocative subjects with politicians not far behind. (Have you ever heard of Mike Duffy?) In any case, for recent months, the views in The House of Commons, and the earlier perspective of the Supreme Court have consumed more daily newspaper space and air time on the sex trade than on most subjects I follow. (This has a truly good side; it reflects the broad diverse opinions of Canadians on a major historic moral matter.)
If my now fading memory (I’m serious, honestly) is correct, the most brief and apt perspective was taken about a decade ago by one senior member of the Supreme Court. “It’s difficult to see,” my fallible recall has a lofty judge saying, “why some Canadians think of outlawing prostitution when almost every major city in Canada has a club where couples can pay at the door and enter for rather wide open sexual activity.” You may not approve of it. (I don’t, at least not legally.) But that’s not the issue. Not at all. The justice’s point is worth thinking about. If it’s all so bad how come the law and the police have been indirectly or couldn’t care less, been accommodating this wide open sex sale over many recent years?
It’s no surprise that the current Conservative government is taking the reins on this one. It’s basically an opportunity for the Harper party, yet one more time, to champion the Harper point of view. Its perspective is at odds with the Supreme Court landmark decision of last December: the court virtually struck down the existing laws making prostitution illegal in favor of protecting those who choose to practice it while taking aim at the opportunistic so-called “pimps”. It urged taking prostitution off the streets to safer locations. That, and other provisions, come close to reflecting a policy adopted in Sweden in 2000 – (known popularly as the Nordic policy) – which would aim not at the women who practice it, but at the men who purchase it. (What an eccentric contradiction: it’s acceptable for her to offer sex for money, but unacceptable for him to say okay. Please! I mean where’s the logic?)
The Swedish practice, while given rather sympathetic endorsement in Canadian media is actually not fully satisfactory in the opinion of Swedish authorities on the scene. A highly placed police executive there, Kaysa Wahlberg, was clearly restrained saying: “It does not solve every problem but it does have a deterrent effect on many people and most people want to stay on the right side of the law.” Not exactly enthusiastic. Some Canadians, a minority but well placed, would have the country choose the opposite: the wide open policies of the Netherlands where, in Amsterdam, the women stand in the windows” beckoning passersby as they’ve done for well over a century. Most Canadians, I suspect, would find this too brazen and aggressive. Moreover the fact is this: despite the practice being admired from afar, Amsterdam’s own civic government is trying to rid the city of a large slice of it – one mostly made up of Asian and other women from abroad. The local government discovered it’s too often a front for the crimes of (a) money laundering, (b) human trafficking and (c) the drug trade. (An article on Amsterdam, done there with my wife Barbara, touches on this aspect and can be read by clicking here.http://www.kennethbagnell.com/?p=637)
In fact there is no broadly acknowledged view that fully open prostitution is widely supported by Canadians. Maybe too many of us have seen, as I once did in Vancouver (being driven about by a media relations person,) drunk native women being almost carried out of slum taverns by a customer, an arm around her waist as he shoved her into his car. Do you like this? That’s partly why, for example, one of the country’s most highly regarded public opinion survey firms, Angus Reid Global, reported this month that the country is almost precisely divided on the key question that comes up every time Harper’s policy is mentioned: should buying sex be legal or illegal? 56 percent of males said yes, 55 percent of females said no. The issue not only separates us as Canadians but often divides us within families. A vice president of Angus Reid Global, Shachi Kurl, put it vividly in The Globe & Mail: “There are actually households that are divided on this….” I’m not surprised. Not at all. History itself is divided. Moreover, no policy that’s affirmed will have a large, decisive segment of Canadians in support. For example, when the Supreme Court announced its liberalizing view, numerous citizenry groups spoke clearly in opposition. One group opinion came from Don Hutchinson, a leader and lawyer of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, an organization reflecting a sizable nationwide and conservative Christian community. It has not just many congregations, but many denominations (about 160) in its umbrella organization. Naturally it can expect strong backing from Prime Minister Harper who, given his religious affiliation and practice, is inevitably a supporter. “What we are suggesting,” Mr. Hutchinson says bluntly, “is that for the first time in Canada, prostitution would be illegal. The purchase of sexual services or the rental of somebody’s body would become illegal.” No grey areas there.
So what can we expect? Probably many more months of debate and high and wide controversy. In time I expect the Supreme Court will prevail and current prostitution laws will be relaxed but, I hope, not entirely relegated to history. We will then enter a culture which will prove, even for secularists, the logic of the ancient Spanish proverb: “Take what you want,” said God, “take it and pay for it.” Old aspects of this highly complex problem may indeed be diminished. But new problems can arise. For wide open legalization can be an invitation to sophisticated organized crime to bring usually poor and naive young women to Canada under a false promise of high paying jobs as, say, corporate hostesses. Upon arrival they’ll be told that — so very sadly mind you! — that those jobs recently became unavailable. But, says their contact person, the glamorous hostess work may come back someday. But for now, they’re offered something else to do for maybe a few months. We know what that “something else” is and it’s ugly. And corrupt. Just ask the people who know. They’re in Amsterdam. On its city council. What do I think? I’ve already decided: it’s your call.
All my past blogs are archived on my website: your comments are welcome there: www.kennethbagnell.com.