The Supreme Court is going to hear the appeal of of a prostitution case that has been in the works since 2009. Justice Susan Himel of the Ontario Superior handed sown a 2010 decision that struck down provisions of the criminal code, sections-210, 212(1)(j) and 213(1)(c). The effect was a de facto legalization of prostitution. The relevant provisions can be found in the Canadian Criminal Code . Those sections dealt with Bawdy Houses, living off the the avails of prostitution and communication for the purposes of prostitution.
Having appealed the initial decision in 2010 by Justice Susan Himel and after being turned back by the Ontario's Court of Appeals in March 2012, it's now in the hands of Canada's top court. The Federal Government will finally have the case heard by the Supreme Court.
The question is will the Supreme court up hold the lower court rulings. I don't know if they will but I know they should.
From a rights standpoint a woman's body is her own, period. She should be free from unreasonable prohibition or restraints imposed by the state. This is something women have fought for over a very long time, make the largest strides in the last 90 years. The right to vote, to be persons separate and equal to men, sexual and reproductive rights. To be sure, the right to be a sex worker was not specifically pursed but it does follow from command over your own body.
The sex trade has been around for a number of millennial. It has been at times been promoted, banned or ignored. The prevailing attitude in the West has been one of Church censure and illegality and a Secular authority that shifted from bans to regulation and sometimes outright recognition.
Our present Laws on sex work reflect the moral sentiment of the Church and rather less a practical method on how to deal with issues surrounding the sex trade. It is not an accident. The duty of the Church is to guard the moral fiber of society, to prepare the flock for the afterlife. Sex and Women are to really sore points for the Church. Women figure unfavourably in the literature, unless confined in or to their proper role. Over the centuries religion has lost its grip; Western Societies reflect this decline the expression of their Laws. We have tried to remove those moral elements that prejudiced our laws. Most specifically those dealing with the rights of religious minorities or Women.
So we have moved on, from the sexual revolution, the pill; embraced the notion that women are equal. The anticipated Armageddon never arrived. But some of our laws still bear a hint of that moral censure directed at women; and to be fair also male sex trade workers, but that is an issue that runs parallel to this one. Canada's top Court will finally get to rule on this issue and hopefully brush of the moral bits while keeping the bits that matter.
What our Criminal code must to be able to do is protect the Sex trade worker, presently it exposes them to harm. There are occasions of assault, rape or the simple act of a customer failing to pay. You can't rely on the police, the civil courts can not enforce contracts commercial because you are engaged in an illegal enterprise. When you are outside the law you are vulnerable, exploitable.
The remedy is to treat a sex worker in part like other trades persons, offering civil and criminal protections. It is not an endorsement of the sex trade but a recognition that the sex trade exists and our first priority is safety of the workers not to fix moral opprobrium. What the Justice left in place gives you an indication of the thought process. All provisions dealing with coercion of any kind through drugs,violence or threat, remain in force. By far the greatest harm is centered on the ruthless exploitation of sex workers rather than a moral failing of selling sex.
To be frank, I may question privately the choice to be a sex worker, but it should remain that person's choice. The more informed the choice the better.
I do have some reservations. They revolve around the notion of selling your body, for however short a time. I have tried to consider it in the same vein, once again, as the trades person. They sell their labour. You contract with the electrician you don't own them. The issue of intimacy is different in detail rather than level of exposure, say with your Doctor or divorce lawyer. The real difference is in the social acceptance, or at least tolerance.
I also recognize that in a world where women are sexualised from an early age and their worth seemingly calculated on a scale of attractiveness, normalizing the sex trade might make life worse for women. I think perhaps my concern is premature. Removing from our society the myth of the Courtesan, by normalizing the nature of the sex trade, could be beneficial. Their is nothing less exciting than the banal. As well, returning to the women the control over their bodies that prostitution laws had appropriated, can be seen as a measure of good.
I expect that legalization will bring an improvement to women and men in the sex trade; a first step that removes the fear, the violence, and the moral turpitude from their lives.
No comments:
Post a Comment