Editorial Opinion on Prostitution Law - a cross-country sampling

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

A selection of newspaper editorial comment from the last two days:

Montreal's[I] The Gazette[/I]:

[url]http://www.montrealgazette.com/Gazette+View+Prostitutes+like+everyone+else+deserve+safety/4946952/story.html[/url]

[INDENT]"The Gazette's View: Prostitutes, like everyone else, deserve safety ... Prostitution is more than a legal issue. It goes to the heart of what kind of society a country wants to have. By this measure, Canada is not doing well ... Solutions to the complex issues around prostitution won't be easy to find, but that doesn't excuse Parliament from making an honest effort.... nothing anyone does will make it go away altogether, and many of those involved in it are among the most damaged and/or vulnerable in our society. What can and should be done is to air the issues surrounding prostitution, carry out an examination of what has worked and what hasn't in other countries, and concentrate on providing a new legal framework that protects prostitutes' personal safety.
[/INDENT]


Mariana Valverde (director of the Centre for Criminology and Sociolegal Studies at the University of Toronto) in the [I]The Star[/I]:

[url]http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1008806--lawyers-fiddle-while-prostitution-laws-burn[/url]

[INDENT]It is true that some women sex workers and some feminists agree with the morally conservative groups supporting the government, who claim â?? in an echo of the ill-fated "Just say no to drugs" campaign â?? that whatever the consequences, the criminal law needs to "send a message" to "johns and pimps," ....

But such facts and arguments don't at all help the government's case ... sex workers who have been victimized by clients or pimps don't exactly benefit from the fact that, on top of these troubles, they can be arrested, evicted or lose custody of their kids because they are breaking the law.

This makes the government look like it's beating up on women not only for engaging in sex work â?? even though prostitution is technically legal â?? but also for taking some normal precautions, such as hiring a driver for outcalls ...

One would feel sorry for the government lawyers â?? if it weren't for the fact that they are being well paid out of tax revenues, while those seeking justice by challenging the law make do with a Legal Aid shoestring and a bunch of volunteer law students.

The government clearly knows that pragmatic regulatory options are receiving much attention. But instead of looking at what other countries have done to regulate the business in the wake of decriminalization, and devising a new law that would try to reduce harms, in the recognition that sex work is here to stay, the Harper government has buried its head in the sand. Legislative inertia is what underlies the quiet desperation shown by the government lawyers appearing at Osgoode Hall.

The Harper government could learn, for example, from the New Zealand 2003 law that sets out a sensible rationale for decriminalization and allows for local regulation of the sex trade. And a new law would make the current appeal â?? and a future even more expensive appeal to the Supreme Court â?? unnecessary and moot.

But improving the safety of sex workers and encouraging municipalities to talk with them about strategies for regulating the business is the kind of sensible, practical move that is unlikely in a government that builds prisons for unreported crime.

It seems that Harper and his ministers will continue to fiddle while the prostitution laws burn. And the benighted lawyers representing the Department of Justice and the Ontario government will keep clutching at legal straws.
[/INDENT]

The[I] Globe & Mail[/I] editorial board:

[url]http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/on-prostitution-the-governments-case-is-weak/article2060706/[/url]

[INDENT]It could be argued that the prostitution laws are not arbitrary, that they are designed to protect vulnerable women and the community from degradation and exploitation. We have argued that prostitution should be decriminalized because forcing it underground puts women at greater risk, but we have also said that balancing complex social harms is the job of Parliament, not the courts. Now, though, the weakness of the federal argument against prostitution â?? "it is not a constitutionally protected right" â?? gives us pause. It suggests the harms done to women by the prostitution laws are simply outside the government's field of vision. They don't register. They are not weighed in the balance.

If that is the case, the Ontario Court of Appeal (and, some day, the Supreme Court of Canada) may feel obliged to weigh the harms themselves, and come to its own conclusions.[/INDENT]


John Chambers for QMI in the [I]London Free Press[/I]:

[url]http://www.lfpress.com/comment/editorial/2011/06/14/18280206.html[/url]

[INDENT]Government should stay out of our bedrooms ... Ultimately the decision has to rest with consenting adults: A man or woman who is willing to sell a service, and someone who is willing to pay for it. Once those criteria have been established, what business is it of anyone else to judge or question? ... Prostitution isn't new, and it isn't going away. The least we can do is strive to make it a little bit safer for those who earn their living through those means.[/INDENT]


The [I]National Post[/I] editorial board:

[url]http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/06/13/national-post-editorial-board-fixing-our-broken-prostitution-laws/[/url]

[INDENT]Since prostitution is legal, the activities that facilitate it should be legal, too. That makes the federal Justice department's arguments in this week's appeals court all the more bizarre ... the federal government's decision to submit affidavits describing the negative emotional consequences of being paid for sex is perplexing, given that it is not seeking to outlaw prostitution altogether.... If Ottawa truly cares about stopping the victimization of prostitutes, it will stop fighting the current case and work on making laws governing prostitution more consistent and sensible.[/INDENT]


Howard Elliott in the [I]Hamilton Spectator[/I]:

[url]http://www.thespec.com/opinion/editorial/article/547098--rethinking-the-sex-trade[/url]

[INDENT]The sex trade is not going anywhere. Many reasonable people might wish otherwise, but wishing will not make it so. Prostitution has always been with us, and always will be. But we are hypocritical about that reality. Rather than face it down and deal with it, we have chosen to deal indirectly with it, which has proven ineffective and inhumane ...

The societal question we must answer is not whether or not we can legislate the sex trade out of existence, or out of plain view, which is what we tried to do prior to Judge Himel's courageous ruling.

Rather the question is: Acknowledging the sex trade is with us to stay, what social and legal policy decisions do we need to make to strike the best possible balance between the protection of the general population, sex trade workers and their clients? We don't pretend to have all the answers to that question. But we don't need to reinvent the wheel because there are plenty of jurisdictions to learn from.

One thing is clear: Supporting a legal framework that forces prostitutes to work in unsafe, unsanitary and stigmatized environments isn't helping. The first step in figuring out the rest of the answers is supporting Himel's ruling and tossing out this antiquated legislation.[/INDENT]