By Carly Romano
In my last post, I touched upon how the concept of choice divides feminists on the issue of prostitution. I introduced Becky (a woman given all the free-choice options available) and Shelley (a child given few, if any, of the options available to females in general). I showed how the Beckys of the world form a percentage of the prostitution population that is statistically insignificant. However, many people still frame the issue of prostitute rights as if the Beckys of the world were the only type of prostitute out there.
This is the essence of Alan Young’s argument in his quest to strike down the laws surrounding prostitution. I would like to bring you back to my first post when I outlined Section 7 of the Charter:
However, and this cannot be stressed enough, there is a built in exception to this Section that provides for situations where protecting the life, liberty and security of the person may infringe on the life, liberty and security of the people.
If one person’s right to security adversely affects the right to security of the other 99 people, then the courts are given the power to say that it is a reasonable infringement on rights in the interest of the right to security in the bigger picture. This is why we have a Supreme Court of Canada. Becky’s right to operate a brothel freely is trumped by the millions of Shelleys out there who will be abused, tortured, coerced and manipulated if the laws are struck down.
The legalization advocates would have you believe that this is not the case. They would argue that the safety of prostitutes everywhere would increase due to access to indoor facilities, bodyguards, and condoms. With respect, this is an unrealistic view of the reality of prostitution. There are numerous examples of legalization in other countries that have gone horribly wrong due to the idealistic view of women making free choices to be prostitutes, namely: Germany, Amsterdam, Netherlands and New Zealand. In these countries, prostitution has become a huge industry run by criminal organizations that are free to operate with impunity. Even those outfits that are not run by criminal organizations seek out women with limited economic options and encourage them to pursue careers as sex workers. These women usually find themselves in a situation they want to escape, but can’t due to economic reasons. I have spoken with many Shelleys and they have all told me that they see women enter prostitution in order to make money to pay for their education only to find that they cannot escape due to the cycle of psychological guilt and shame that consumes them. And to be clear, this is not necessarily society’s shame that they are feeling.
Presenting prostitution as a viable economic option for women completely ignores society’s responsibility to provide women with equal opportunities to men. Why should a woman have to endure such psychological pain and suffering in order to pay for her education? I would point out that she should be provided with the means to achieve her goals without having to resort to selling herself. A society that encourages this is taking a huge step backwards in encouraging women’s rights.
Countries that have successfully updated their prostitution laws, like Sweden, use what has been labeled the Nordic model. This model recognizes that prostitutes are victims, as opposed to criminals and this victimization stems from culturally held perspectives. In order to address this issue, Sweden removed all laws criminalizing prostitutes and increased penalties for the purchasers driving the demand for prostitution. Along with this legal shift, they ensured that law enforcement were properly trained to understand the situation and they educated the public through a widespread advertising campaign. The results were tangible and outstanding. Societal views about prostitution changed and thus the purchasers, who until that point had remained in the shadows, were being held responsible for their actions with strict punishments. The demand for prostitution drastically decreased and with it, the supply.
I find this very telling. If prostitutes were completely free individuals exercising their right to freedom, then the lack of demand would not cut out the supply. They would provide their services whenever they chose, however they chose, whether the demand was high or not. However, if the prostitutes were being coerced and controlled, then it stands to reason that the decrease in demand would equate with a decrease in supply, as maintaining a supply of prostitutes is more costly when the demand is down. Criminal organizations now steer clear of Sweden because the risk of operating there is too high, when other countries allow them to operate freely.
It is this knowledge that makes Young’s argument seem all the more tenuous and the argument of legalization seem questionable at best.
To be continued…
Free-Them 