The Informant

A Comment by Me.

Why is the jargon decriminalization rather than legalization of prostitution?

Prostitution is legal in Canada. But the current issue is how to regulate prostitution with the law since the decision of the Bedford Case suspended three provisions of the Criminal Code on prostitution as of Decemeber 2013. Those provisions dealt with owning and operating a "bawdy-house"; "living on the prevails of prostitution"; and "communication for the purposes of prostitution". They were struck down because they violated a prostitute's Section 7 Chartered Rights.

What is the moral issue of decriminalizing prostitution?

Based on the Bedford Case I think what worried the judge was the way the law prevented prostitutes from prostituting in a safer, less risky manner.

Let draw some relative scenario.

If it is unsafe for a woman to walk through a dark, silent, and isolated part of a neighborhood at the middle of the night, then they should avoid doing so.

How might the law make walking in a neighborhood unsafe? Lets say the law

prohibits women from walking in a better lit place;

or prohibits women from being seen by others at 2 am on a path;

or prohibits women from talking about walking in the dark, and scary path;

or prohibits women from taking a cab;

or prohibits women from having a partner to walk with.

So the law lists all the conditions a woman must follow: it blocks off the safer path, and safety measures a women can take. It restricts a woman to the path no one should have to take. To point out the obvious: if the law prevented a women from choosing a safer path, then of course it should be struck down.  This is the logic of decriminalization, to strike down laws that essentially lead a prostitute down a dark and scary path. But this logic is met by a more traditional and harsh type of logic.

The opposing side says: if prostitution is so risky already, then women should be protected from this type of activity. Prostitution should be criminalized, and it is the demand side of the business that should be criminalized. Buyers of sex, and all pimps of prostitutes should be criminalized and punished so the action will not be repeated. Take away the opportunity or choice to buy sex, and women are safe. Religious groups are also of this attitude. Prostitution is a sin. BUT, the law's purpose is not to punish "sins", and this was not in the Canadian criminal code before December 2013 either. Remember prostitution was and is a legal activity (despite the fact that it is a "sin").

Note that the old laws were used to protect the community from nuisance caused by the prostitution.

Lastly, there is the uncontested, most-vile, most-abominable area of the argument: human trafficking. Prostitution and human trafficking. Not the same thing. The law will never condone the acts of human traffickers, and never should. And for clarity of the argument, prostitution is the act of consenting adults who choose this line of work. From the Bedford Case, the judge is worried about the safety of these prostitutes while maintaining and not even touching human trafficking laws. Those laws will not be changed.

Although the argument is now convoluted, due to the overwhelming immorality of human trafficking, the present lawmakers and general public still must settle the matters of immorality of the previous prostitution laws. They must settle on how the law will regulate/allow prostitutes to privately/safely conduct their business in the future. 

What will happen? What should happen?

We will know by the end of this year. But look at how the scenario painted above for any woman (of any occupation), is related to a prostitute prostituting with our older, struck-down laws. The immediate choice for the woman: she shouldn't walk there but she will because the law says she must. What's the immediate choice for the prostitute? (Hint: She'll follow the law to even though she shouldn't.) The Bedford Case decision was all based on evidence (evidence for the way a prostitute should - but couldn't - better conduct their business). 

There are a lot of moral issues adjacent to the current ones lawmakers face while constructing our new prostitution laws. Prostitution laws affect the prostitute, and the buyers of their services. And what you and I care about is: prostitution laws affects society too, us. Whether you agree with the title, or you don't, it is helpful to read up on some things (ordered by relevance):

different models of different countries towards prostitution;

the prostitute's side of the story;

AND THEN read the societal concerns;

and then maybe read some feminists' views (because there's more than one).

When you're thoroughly confused by the cacophony, take a break. I am not going to take any sort of stance, publicly, except that we shouldn't forget our own identity in this: what makes a Canadian society Canadian? So read up on liberty after giving that some thought. And then make up your mind.

Because what are doing? Wtf are we doing?

US cocaine congressman takes leave

American late-night hosts who first discovered Rob Ford as a result of some of his more innocent blunders are falling in love with Toronto all over again