I’ve decided for the summer issue that instead of politics, let’s talk about sex.
Okay, not really, but the politics of doing the nasty, and paying for it, are on everyone in Ottawa’s mind these days as we approach the hearing for Peter MacKay’s excitingly named “Prostitution Bill.”
If you haven’t been following, a number of months ago the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Canada may have changed a little bit since our laws surrounding prostitution were drafted way back when. We were based on the British model, which did not regulate the actual paying of actual money for actual sex, just the many facets that it brought with it.
What was illegal was operating a brothel, soliciting on the street, and a number of other things your grandma would be concerned to hear about you doing. Since the court case, though, those laws have been struck down and the Supreme Court has told Parliament to get on changing the laws around the oldest of professions.
Debate swelled in political and academic circles over the best way to tackle prostitution, and which of the existing models to duplicate or adapt. Few were surprised when MacKay and the Tories proposed the “Nordic model,” which criminalizes the purchase of sex, but not the sale.
Scary talk about morality and Canadian values abounds, with MacKay warning that if his government’s bill doesn’t pass, “prostitution will be decriminalized in Canada.” Let’s ignore the fact that it already is. Even opponents to the bill are scapegoating and debating the idea of the bill, rather than its content.
Famous conservative pundit Tom Flanagan claims that the Nordic model is based on “radical feminism,” which somehow makes it a less valid opinion.
For what it’s worth, I don’t believe that the Prostitution Bill and its proposed Nordic model are the best option. Let’s not punish either side of a voluntary interaction between two adults in a free market. I know that will never fly with the Tories, so I am hoping we could all drop the rhetoric and approach sex work reform like grownups.
“Even opponents to the bill are scapegoating and debating the idea of the bill, rather than its content” – Excellent observation!
Never in a million years did I see Harper teaming up with promoters of “tear down the white male privileged patriarchy”. For in fact, isn’t that what Harper’s base is? But Harper teamed up with groups of ex-sex workers who can claim to “represent the experience of sex work”, and hopefully for Harper drown out current sex workers voices.
Secondly and maybe most important of all for Harper, these groups can make a lot of noise about addressing human trafficking in Canada. So what? Well, it has to do with Canada’s ability to do international trade with the US. Clinton introduced a Trafficking in Persons report. Every year he rated countries and if they were addressing human trafficking (mostly for labour) then they were deemed to be Tier One and they had the most favourable business relationships with the US. Bush made the TIP all about sex. He even made AIDS NGOs specifically promise to oppose prostitution in their mandate in order to receive funds. By the time Obama came into office, labour trafficking was ignored while sex trafficking was made a big hullaboo about, causing Hillary to lay down the rules for these international NGOs who instead of making sure factory workers in Bangledesh supplying tshirts to western countries were safe, travelled the world and lobbied Parliaments (and intervened in court cases as witnesses, including Bedford) to keep prostitution in the criminal code.
In Canada, an RCMP 2008 Human Trafficking Report states that most arrests for trafficking are sex related, but because labour abuses are steered to the Labour Board instead of criminal charges. They also state that their is a lack of coordination between different governments and agencies in finding and prosecuting labour trafficking.
Think about it. Harper has made 4 or 5 announcements declaring millions for sex trafficking NGOs. How many announcements has he made about addressing labour trafficking?