Poor Judgement

No matter how messed up stuff gets here in the states, there's always Canada to make us look good by comparison. Although that's no consolation.

From LifeSiteNews.com: Canadian Laws Restricting Prostitution "Unconstitutional" - Ontario Court

A Superior Court judge ruled on Tuesday that prostitutes should be allowed to freely communicate with customers on the street, conduct their business in their homes or brothels, and hire accountants, drivers and bodyguards, without fear of criminal prosecution.

In her decision Justice Susan Himel stated that Criminal Code laws against keeping a common bawdy house, living on the avails of prostitution and communicating for the purpose of prostitution violated women’s Charter rights to freedom of expression and security of the person.

The case challenging the prostitution laws was brought forward by three Toronto "sex-trade workers" who hired lawyer Alan Young to represent them.

Young argued that the Criminal Code prohibitions prevented prostitutes from having sex with their customers in the safety of their homes or brothels, and prevented them from hiring accountants, drivers and bodyguards who could be charged with living on the avails of prostitution.

Justice Himel suspended her ruling, which is binding only in Ontario, for 30 days to allow the provincial and federal governments to consider the implications of the decision.

What is it with liberal judges? Granted - prostitution is not illegal in Canada. However, public communications of prostitution is. So, you can get laid for money, you just can't advertise for it. So in effect, Judge Himel is saying such unfair business practice places undue burden on the proprietor. After all, for example, if McDonald's can advertise their artery-clogging Angus burgers, why can't a prostitute solicit openly as well? I'm not saying that's what Himel wrote in her decision - it's just how liberals think. If business A has a right to do something, then business B should too, even if business B has a track record of abuse, murder, and injury. Each is likely to give you a disease, so there should be equal opportunity for both to be advertised. Forget for a moment that cigarettes ads have been prohibited from radio and TV for years - because of the harm to one's health - we're talking sex here. Cigarettes bad, sex with strangers for money good.

Note to Justice Himel: Prostitution is bad for women, with or without legal protections. Women are reduced to two-legged pleasure providers, regarded no more than a Playstation with a heartbeat. It seems to me that a more compassionate approach is to go after the men who prey on the women than to allow them to hire bodyguards, who are likely to be just as abusive as the johns and pimps. And I bet that it's not the women who are seeking these protections - it's their pimps who are feeling a squeeze in these tough economic times.

And there's no proof that providing legal protection is a guarantee for safer working conditions for the women. From the same article:

However, reports from these jurisdictions have consistently indicated that the legalization of prostitution has not achieved the expected results.

In 2005, the mayor of Amsterdam admitted that the Dutch experiment to curb abuse by legalizing prostitution in 2000 had failed miserably.

"Almost five years after the lifting of the brothel ban, we have to acknowledge that the aims of the law have not been reached", said Mayor Job Cohen in an NCR report. "Lately we've received more and more signals that abuse still continues."

Police in Amsterdam's infamous red light district were quoted by Dutch media as saying, "We are in the midst of modern slavery." Police said they were hampered in confronting the horrors that are characteristic of the sex trade because prostitution was legal.

In 2005 it was reported that Germany was reconsidering its position on legalized prostitution, made legal there in 2003, after reports that legalization had not really had any benefit for prostitutes, nor had it improved the situation for Germany at large.

Bottom line - the vulnerable are not helped by legal protections or expanded "rights". It never works. There is no way to practice vice virtuously. Prostitution is bad for everybody involved, but mostly the women, on every level - emotionally, spiritually, physically. More often than not, the prostitutes are trapped - like the article said, "modern slavery". Human trafficking.

The solution is not to allow prostitutes access to accountants and open soliciting. The solution is to go after the pimps and johns and purveyors of the flesh trade (heck - throw in the porn producers and strip club owners too - they're more than hip-deep into this smut, after all). The goal is to free the women, not add to their bondage.

In January 2010, prior to the Winter Olympics, the Canadian Bishops issued a Pastoral Letter on Human Trafficking. Here's a portion of what they wrote regarding prostitution:

[...]

In a country that considers equality between women and men to be a fundamental value, a country where a majority of citizens are Christians who promote the dignity of each person created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), how can we tolerate prostitution, which is a form of institutionalized violence that destroys the physical, psychological and spiritual integrity of other human beings?

Many avenues exist to help solve this problem. We can support organizations that work with those who are victims of human trafficking, and also ask our governments to set up programs to educate people and to prevent violence against women. To help women break free of prostitution, as they are generally the victims, we must provide concrete assistance: including health care, psychological counselling, detoxification programs, safe housing, decent employment, and spiritual support.

Too bad they didn't call for the end of legalized prostitution, but at least it's something. They need to speak strongly and loudly against this judge's poor judgement as well.