Ladies of the night merit nice corner office at home
ROSIE DIMANNO
If all the hookers who've appeared before a parliamentary subcommittee on Canada's prostitution laws were laid end to end ... well, they'd be a lot richer, for one thing.
Couple of hundred bucks up, at room service rates, just for yesterday's little exercise in public deputations at a downtown hotel.
It all sounded very, very familiar. Indeed, I think I've written this column at least a dozen times over the last two decades. I'd say only the names have changed but that would be incorrect, as long-time sex trade workers advocate Valerie Scott reminded, recalling her first appearance at such a forum 20 years ago, when the subject was Bill C-39, a.k.a. the "communicating law."
"I come to these things quite often,'' sighed Scott, who still looks quite smashing for a middle-aged industry veteran, speaking on behalf of the Sex Professionals of Canada.
"We told them what would happen if Bill C-39 was passed, that there would be more rapes, more robberies, more murders. And that's exactly what happened."
Since 1985, according to statistics gathered by Scott's association, 69 prostitutes have been murdered in Vancouver alone, 80 are missing or dead in Edmonton, and upwards of 500 aboriginal women remain unaccounted for across the country, to say nothing of the thousands upon thousands who have earned criminal records for practising the world's oldest profession, sex trade workers — primarily women — punished in overwhelming disproportion to their clients.
And yet, as a society, we still wrangle with the issue, community groups versus hookers, hookers versus social agencies, social agencies versus police, police versus policy makers. Now it's the turn, formally, of the Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. That's a mouthful but the dilemma remains the same: How to regulate a controversial if vigorous vocation in a way that satisfies all the "stakeholders'' involved — from ratepayer groups to law enforcement agencies, from do-good interventionists to those who actually turn the tricks.
It bears repeating: Prostitution is not illegal in Canada — just nearly everything surrounding the practice, most notably soliciting and keeping a bawdy house, which technically prevents streetwalkers from plying their trade in the safer environment of their homes or some kind of brothel establishment, even though this is a common occurrence throughout Toronto. Yet common does not equate to common law, thus every prostitute advertising herself under the vague designation of "escort'' is vulnerable to abuse, both from a poorly formulated law and "bad dates," wherein victims must turn for justice to the very enforcement agencies that, in their view, persecute them.
Face it. Prostitution will never be eradicated. Nor should it be, for a host of obvious reasons, the most central of which is the human desire for sex. Where there's a demand, there will be a supply. There's nothing inherently immoral about that. Not everybody enjoys a constant availability of sex from a loving partner. And, frankly, love often has little to do with what is a primal instinct. Men who pay for sex are not criminals, although our justice system disagrees. And women, or other men, for that matter, are not criminals for providing a service.
Eventually, if saner heads prevail, a mature society will have to choose between decriminalizing or legalizing prostitution. Toronto Councillor Kyle Rae, whose ward encompasses three infamous and visibly obvious sex "tracks'' — straight, gay and transgendered —— was among those advocating legalization in the form of red-light districts, a concept advanced by the city in the past.
It's the detritus of prostitution — the "leftovers'' of sex — along with the noise, the bickering, the taunting, that most bothers residents, he said. The nuisance factor gets up people's noses, even though "only about 20 per cent of prostitution occurs on the street." Most of the activity is taking place, he said, in high-rise apartment buildings and other domestic venues, shared for the purpose, with rare complaints from neighbours — only one to his office in all his years as an elected politician. "It is quite harmless in people's homes, for the most part."
But the red-light district option — as practised in such sex capitals as Amsterdam and Frankfurt, where brothels and prostitutes are licensed, taxed and held to firm health standards — finds little favour with prostitutes who are leery of bureaucracy.
"We want to be seen as workers, not small business," argued Anastasia Kucyk, from the Sex Workers Alliance of Toronto. "What do you do with a small business? You regulate it, as if we were a package of cigarettes or a bottle of booze. And we're not. We're human beings."
There is, further, the issue of money. Let's be clear here — prostitution is a lucrative endeavour requiring minimal skills. They're in it for the cash. In jurisdictions where brothels are legal, the pimp is both the state and the house. "If you're told to charge $100, the government takes $50 and the house takes $25," said Kucyk. "And then they fine the s--t out of you."
Decriminalizing — taking prostitution off the books entirely, deleting it from the Criminal Code, allowing hookers to operate from their homes without fear of arrest — would go a long way towards addressing the societal discomfort with the trade. Is it not rather silly to make criminals out of both the sex trade worker and the client, in what is basically a business transaction between consenting adults?
"We are very opposed to criminalizing any behaviour of Johns," said Kucyk, sticking up for her clients, many of whom have been with her for a long time. Most men who buy sex are not pathological or deviant. And those who do harm prostitutes are not ordinary Johns. "We're talking about men who have violent tendencies, masquerading as Johns."
It's the stigma of prostitution — its illegality and the moral disapproval surrounding the trade — that victimizes both practitioner and client, according to several of those who spoke yesterday. One was Leslie Milne, formerly an intake worker with a social agency involved in the John School program, whereby men charged with paying for sex can have their record expunged if they submit to an eight-hour course of social re-engineering.
Milne resigned from that job because her "conscience" would no longer allow her to promote a strategy so punitive toward prostitutes and their clients.
She saw men who were lonely, men from other cultures where sex outside of marriage is forbidden.
"Maybe we think these men are unsavoury. Maybe we think they're slimy. But criminal? I don't think so."
The committee itself came in for a bit of a lashing, whether from ratepayer representatives who fear its report will just end up gathering dust on a shelf — as others have done — or from sex trade professionals weary of politicians who presume to understand the business.
Snorted Kucyk: "Unless you can show me your corner, or your ad, you have little standing in my eyes."
ROSIE DIMANNO
If all the hookers who've appeared before a parliamentary subcommittee on Canada's prostitution laws were laid end to end ... well, they'd be a lot richer, for one thing.
Couple of hundred bucks up, at room service rates, just for yesterday's little exercise in public deputations at a downtown hotel.
It all sounded very, very familiar. Indeed, I think I've written this column at least a dozen times over the last two decades. I'd say only the names have changed but that would be incorrect, as long-time sex trade workers advocate Valerie Scott reminded, recalling her first appearance at such a forum 20 years ago, when the subject was Bill C-39, a.k.a. the "communicating law."
"I come to these things quite often,'' sighed Scott, who still looks quite smashing for a middle-aged industry veteran, speaking on behalf of the Sex Professionals of Canada.
"We told them what would happen if Bill C-39 was passed, that there would be more rapes, more robberies, more murders. And that's exactly what happened."
Since 1985, according to statistics gathered by Scott's association, 69 prostitutes have been murdered in Vancouver alone, 80 are missing or dead in Edmonton, and upwards of 500 aboriginal women remain unaccounted for across the country, to say nothing of the thousands upon thousands who have earned criminal records for practising the world's oldest profession, sex trade workers — primarily women — punished in overwhelming disproportion to their clients.
And yet, as a society, we still wrangle with the issue, community groups versus hookers, hookers versus social agencies, social agencies versus police, police versus policy makers. Now it's the turn, formally, of the Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. That's a mouthful but the dilemma remains the same: How to regulate a controversial if vigorous vocation in a way that satisfies all the "stakeholders'' involved — from ratepayer groups to law enforcement agencies, from do-good interventionists to those who actually turn the tricks.
It bears repeating: Prostitution is not illegal in Canada — just nearly everything surrounding the practice, most notably soliciting and keeping a bawdy house, which technically prevents streetwalkers from plying their trade in the safer environment of their homes or some kind of brothel establishment, even though this is a common occurrence throughout Toronto. Yet common does not equate to common law, thus every prostitute advertising herself under the vague designation of "escort'' is vulnerable to abuse, both from a poorly formulated law and "bad dates," wherein victims must turn for justice to the very enforcement agencies that, in their view, persecute them.
Face it. Prostitution will never be eradicated. Nor should it be, for a host of obvious reasons, the most central of which is the human desire for sex. Where there's a demand, there will be a supply. There's nothing inherently immoral about that. Not everybody enjoys a constant availability of sex from a loving partner. And, frankly, love often has little to do with what is a primal instinct. Men who pay for sex are not criminals, although our justice system disagrees. And women, or other men, for that matter, are not criminals for providing a service.
Eventually, if saner heads prevail, a mature society will have to choose between decriminalizing or legalizing prostitution. Toronto Councillor Kyle Rae, whose ward encompasses three infamous and visibly obvious sex "tracks'' — straight, gay and transgendered —— was among those advocating legalization in the form of red-light districts, a concept advanced by the city in the past.
It's the detritus of prostitution — the "leftovers'' of sex — along with the noise, the bickering, the taunting, that most bothers residents, he said. The nuisance factor gets up people's noses, even though "only about 20 per cent of prostitution occurs on the street." Most of the activity is taking place, he said, in high-rise apartment buildings and other domestic venues, shared for the purpose, with rare complaints from neighbours — only one to his office in all his years as an elected politician. "It is quite harmless in people's homes, for the most part."
But the red-light district option — as practised in such sex capitals as Amsterdam and Frankfurt, where brothels and prostitutes are licensed, taxed and held to firm health standards — finds little favour with prostitutes who are leery of bureaucracy.
"We want to be seen as workers, not small business," argued Anastasia Kucyk, from the Sex Workers Alliance of Toronto. "What do you do with a small business? You regulate it, as if we were a package of cigarettes or a bottle of booze. And we're not. We're human beings."
There is, further, the issue of money. Let's be clear here — prostitution is a lucrative endeavour requiring minimal skills. They're in it for the cash. In jurisdictions where brothels are legal, the pimp is both the state and the house. "If you're told to charge $100, the government takes $50 and the house takes $25," said Kucyk. "And then they fine the s--t out of you."
Decriminalizing — taking prostitution off the books entirely, deleting it from the Criminal Code, allowing hookers to operate from their homes without fear of arrest — would go a long way towards addressing the societal discomfort with the trade. Is it not rather silly to make criminals out of both the sex trade worker and the client, in what is basically a business transaction between consenting adults?
"We are very opposed to criminalizing any behaviour of Johns," said Kucyk, sticking up for her clients, many of whom have been with her for a long time. Most men who buy sex are not pathological or deviant. And those who do harm prostitutes are not ordinary Johns. "We're talking about men who have violent tendencies, masquerading as Johns."
It's the stigma of prostitution — its illegality and the moral disapproval surrounding the trade — that victimizes both practitioner and client, according to several of those who spoke yesterday. One was Leslie Milne, formerly an intake worker with a social agency involved in the John School program, whereby men charged with paying for sex can have their record expunged if they submit to an eight-hour course of social re-engineering.
Milne resigned from that job because her "conscience" would no longer allow her to promote a strategy so punitive toward prostitutes and their clients.
She saw men who were lonely, men from other cultures where sex outside of marriage is forbidden.
"Maybe we think these men are unsavoury. Maybe we think they're slimy. But criminal? I don't think so."
The committee itself came in for a bit of a lashing, whether from ratepayer representatives who fear its report will just end up gathering dust on a shelf — as others have done — or from sex trade professionals weary of politicians who presume to understand the business.
Snorted Kucyk: "Unless you can show me your corner, or your ad, you have little standing in my eyes."
