Legalizing Prostitution

A. THE DEFINITION OF PROSTITUTION

Prostitution is the exchange of sexual favours for money or other material goods, devoid of any emotional involvement.

B. WHAT THE CRIMINAL CODE ENTAILS (Procuring, Soliciting, Communicating)

Under Criminalization all forms of prostitution are criminalized. This approach is motivated by the twin beliefs that prostitution has no intrinsic social value and can be completely eradicated through vigorous and uncompromising enforcement of the criminal law. [4] Canada practises a hybrid form of criminalization in that although prostitution itself is theoretically legal in Canada, practising it is not. The Criminal Code prohibits all forms of public communication for the purpose of prostitution (s. 213 [5] ), and most forms of indoor prostitution as well: owning, running, transporting or occupying bawdy house (ss. 210 [6] and 211 [7] ), procuring or living on the avails of prostitution (s. 212 [8] ).

While the trend in other western countries has been to move away from criminal sanctions for prostitution, Canada has done the reverse, legislating a tougher anti-communication law (s. 213) in 1986. More recently, various government committees and task forces have called for even tougher laws as well as more vigorous enforcement of the current legislation. In 1990 the Standing Committee on Justice recommended yet more strengthening of the laws including fingerprinting and photographing prostitutes [9] and the removal of drivers licenses for those charged with communication for the purpose of prostitution. [10]

C. COMMON CAUSES OF WOMEN ENTERING PROSTITUTION

1. Economic Neccesity

2. Exploitation

3. Big Sister Recruitment

4. Family Background

http://web.viu.ca/crim/Student/Sturdy.htm

http://www.walnet.org/csis/papers/sdavis.html#criminalization

________________________________________________________________________________

As we can see from the brief outline above, prostitution is no cut-and-dry issue. It is impossible to argue for the sanctity of one side without heading the cautions of the opposition; unless of course, you're a religious fanatic. However, as carefully as our law-makers have sought to obfuscate the issue, prostitution is essentially illegal.

Prostitution is an ancient art, one that has supported the livelihoods of a great many men and women. From the earliest times when Og the man lusted after Wog his neighbor's wife, to when "nurses" would "socialize" with the soldiers, nature took care of its own. It is one of those careers which has not changed dramatically over the years either; with the exception of legal bounds. It has remained a business transaction, one where sexual favors are exchanged for material goods - most commonly monetary.

However, the onslaught of modernism and the rise of the post-modern feminist movement have brought with it tremendous social stigma against prostitution. Beginning most visibly with Puritanical New England, women in North America were increasingly under pressure to seek “wholesome” roles in society. However, the demand for brothels did not decrease with this push for morals and virtues. What it did lead to, however, was a lot of sexual frustration and in some cases, the release of that frustration in the form of crime. It was not unheard of for the town priest to have visited a brothel the night before, and then burn all of its tenants at the stake. Such was the degree of hypocrisy and allowance of double-standards.

Although this was some 200 years ago, the social structure in regards to prostitution in North America has not changed much at all. Prostitution is considered amoral, and unwholesome for any and all practitioners of it. Components of the morality argument have pushed for a case based on sanctity of marriage. They argue that sex outside of marriage destroys that holy matrimony. Furthermore, prostitution is considered a danger to the public, bringing with it the prospect of crime. A huge part of organized crime revolves around the prostitution and narcotics ring. This in turn brings about the trafficking and exploitation of women and children. Moreover, proponents of harsher criminal measures argue that the prostitution demeans both the women who offer it and the men who take it (assuming heterosexual transaction).

What has changed, is the the application of increasingly stringent laws against prostitution. Ironically enough, current statures do not seem to help mitigate the situation. The increasing criminalization of prostitution has brought about increasing cases of reported rape. According to former American Bar Association Director Linda M. Rio Reichmann, a 149% increase in sexual assault resulted after brothels were closed down in Queensland, Australia during the 1950's. In another case, the positive profit margin gained by organized crime has skyrocketed. Prostitution rings and pimping groups flourish, recycling that profit into more serious criminal activities such as narcotics and racketeering.

To the arguments concerning morality and loss of dignity, I say that liberty of necessity trumps all. A marriage is commonly seen as broken when one spouse becomes romantically involved with another person. However, prostitution is by definition, sexual involvement DEVOID of emotional involvement. Thus, the purchasing of sex would not endanger that a contract of “love” between husband and wife. Prostitution can therefore be seen as an activity which fulfills a necessity for both the buyer and the seller.

For those who buy it, sex is as necessary a component of life as water or food. Some may argue that criminalizing prostitution cuts off the demand and thereby eradicates the supply. What would happen if you cut people off from water or food? For the seller, prostitution is simply a professional attitude. Does she want to demean herself? Probably not. But what choice does she have if she needs to feed a toddler and pay the bills for her aged parents? The government only seeks to criminalize her actions, instead of helping her get rehabilitated. Often, girls enter the sex-trade at a young age, seeking to get a quick buck and get out. But due to the criminalization of prostitution and subsequent social stigma, she may be forced to continue working there for a prolonged amount of time.

In concluding, I see no reason for the continued criminalization of the world's “oldest profession.” Morality and virtue are important to society, but lie outside the jurisdiction of the law. Our laws are made to better keep our democracy and our liberty, not to govern out individual tenants concerning morality and virtue. Legalization of prostitution truly maximizes our charter rights to life, liberty, and security of person. Legalization provides hope to the mitigation of organized crime, the protection of many girls from prostitution rings, and the allocation of safe channels of access for men and women.

A Girl's Story - David Arnason

David Arnason seems to say that the crafting of fiction is a complex and arduous task. Although the plots are easy to develop or “plagiarize,” the development of detail is a winding path that takes much consideration. There are many stereotypical aspects that make the story more appealing to the reader. Arnason seems to purport this view in that readers tend to be able to enjoy and be able to identify what popular media and history has depicted as being beautiful, romantic, or correct. That would be the superficial explanation. Underneath all of narrator's apparent confusion, David Arnason is really criticizing the art of “crafting fiction.” He only delineates the various aspects of crafting fiction so that he can make a satire of it.

Arnason seems bitter; disenchanted almost. He talks about how he had easily taken plots from other great works of literature. What he really means is that contemporary writers of fiction shamelessly steal from the past greats, regurgitating in a derivative and thus disgusting form. He also criticizes the publication process by saying that no matter how bad a story is, it will eventually be published. Arnason attacks the frequent use of stereotypes as the norm in stories. He seems to complain that there is no breathing room for creativity; any such action will result in the reader disliking the story. Further restrictions seem to be put on genuine writers of fiction when detractors such as the “feminists” constantly attack and disparage their works. Arnason also wracks this piece with grammatical errors, parodying the horrific usage of English in modern literature; especially within the realm of fiction. Overall, Arnason seems to say that the crafting of fiction is coming close to being a formula. Plug this and that in to achieve the end result.

Arnason's complaints are not unheard of in other realms of art. His description of fiction as a formula is mirrored by the entertainment industry. Movies and TV shows – if broken down – have essentially the same plots. In order avoid the loss of investor capital, the foremost goal of directors is not originality, but box-office success. As we progress into the modern age, a time of mindless consumerism and media giants, our actions become dictated by mob mentality. We are essentially zombies without super-fast speed and rotting flesh. We love to hate anything new. We love security and conformity. The detriment to the artistic work is that artists can no longer produce pieces of art according to their artistic sensibilities. They must produce art according to standard set by their managers and editors. The mastery and originality of any piece of writing, music, or painting are traded-off for popularity and monetary gain.

All Rise: Necessity v. Cruelty (2011)

What constitutes cruelty? What constitutes necessity? How can one condone the killing of cattle or swine but look unfavorably upon the killing of dolphins or cats? Where doth one stand in the animal kingdom, now that homo sapiens replace the brutish homo neanderthal-is?

Such questions have puzzled me for a long time, and it is high time to do something about it. While watching YouTube, I came across a very graphic and appalling video regarding the slaughter of turtles in New Zealand. The resentment, sorrow, and confusion that had set in after watching The Cove, became renewed in full.

In recent years, animal cruelty activists and conservation agencies have become progressively more vocal in their war against human kind. While it is true that many animals are slaughtered yearly, it is also true that animals have been integral parts of our diet for many millennia. From the homo erect-us' success at hunting mammoths to the modern ape's angus burger at White-Spot today, veal has never left our side. If meat is so important to the human race, why do these activists remain adamant about cutting off our supply?

Animal activists argue that animals such as cattle or sheep are domesticated and bred for the sole purpose of consumption. Thus they reason, their deaths are not as nearly as memorable and worthwhile as those of cute, furry pets. However, some cultures hold these animals on an inordinately high level of importance. For example, the Hindu faith of India regards cattle as the sacred animal. Cows are cared for unto their death, and the killing of cattle is an unspeakable taboo. On the flip-side, countries such as Germany or the United States have no problem killing millions of heads of cattle to supply MacDonald and the proliferation of obesity. Who's right? Who's wrong? Who can say?

The Japanese kill thousands of dolphins and whales every year. In response, the international community has set treaty after treaty, governing the Japanese whaling industry, and their subsequent grounds of operation. Wildlife preservation societies are still attacking the Japanese, and the Japanese are still killing dolphins and whales. While many people mindlessly revile the Japanese for their “heinous” actions, some people actually stop to observe. It seems that dolphins and whales have been a dietary staple for the Japanese since a very early time. As Japan is a small island nation, it makes sense for it to rely on products of the sea rather than waste large patches of their valuable land tending cattle or sheep. This activity of whaling – one that is condemned by the whole world – is a way of life, very much like bull-riding or deer-hunting. In Canada, Orcas, or killer whales, are hunted by the Native Indians. Even today, the government grants special permission for Natives to hunt Orca on the basis that it is a way of life they have no authority to encroach upon. All the time, Canadians are a very large and vocal force in condemning the Japanese for whaling. Who's right? Who's wrong? Who can say?

For now, I will have to leave you with this much. The truth is, I don't want to know, or believe that one side is indefinitely superior than the other. It all seems to be a grey area. All I can say is that killing for the sake if killing if morally wrong. As higher thinkers and rational beings, humans should only act out of necessity. Even when necessity comes knocking on our door, we should keep it shut until we have eaten the last pot of flour, and drank the last drop of dew. Moreover, it is morally wrong to accuse others of an act which we ourselves commit on a regular basis. This double-standard is the mother of all misconceptions and the father of contention. Ignorance of the practices and lifestyles of others, is no justification for a claim of superiority. Is it really of such importance to assert that the eating of rabbit is morally wrong compared to the consumption of chicken? Let the man eat what he wants, I say. Ye of shallow breadth and callow passions, set free liberty, and you will live by it.