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.

Vancouverites, Stanley Cup, and Solidarity

Although it's really nice that people are able to band together on certain days, it's also revealing of a sad side of Vancouver. This just proves that Vancouver is so superficial and ephemeral, lacking in any substance whatsoever.

Why is it that for some reason Vancouver can only unite during the olympics or the Stanley CUp? We should be seeing people high-fiving each other on a daily basis because life is good, and we need to show each other some support. Like my favorite African American Rapper John Lennon of the Butterflies once said, "Make Love, Not War."

But really though, let's take a look at daily life in Vancouver sans the Stanley Cup and other big events. Crimes, segregated populations, people looking after their own little interests. Of course there is the great scenery and flora, but what happened to the spirit of this society? This place seems so dead.

Whenever people visit Vancouver, they comment on how beautiful this place is. It is beautiful, but when the groups of people in Vancouver can't communicate with each other, what's the use? We need to enjoy beauty together, and not just pluck a flower and hide in the corner.

After the Stanley Cup, we'll all go back to our lives of recluse, having lived a transitory moment of beauty. Why can't Vancouverites just come together for the sake of coming together? I mean, if you go to California, people are all so happy and cheerful. You rarely see instances of people demeaning others. I mean, I was pretty horrified when I saw a bus driver yelling at an Asian driver, "Go back to your own country!" This doesn't seem like a place I would want to live in for too long.

This transitory unity is merely a superficial cover-up of a city festered with ages-old resentment against immigrants and minorities. If we cannot identify with each other, and accept each other, we will never, and I repeat, NEVER, become united.

Haters Don't Hate

Hate is a strong word, especially when used against your own prime minister. In a democracy, people have the right to criticize government, but criticism should be constructive, and beneficial towards the country. When people criticize for the sake of criticism, society stops moving forward, and we can never progress.

Let's not be pessimistic cynics, but rather optimistic realists. When something has happened, we cannot reminisce about what it was like before, or how life would have been better if it had not happened. When some challenge presents itself, we shouldn't complain, but rather find solutions.

I understand that many people don't like Harper, and I don't understand why. Sure, Harper may have his faults, but hate is beyond what is necessary to condemn his actions. We did elect, please remember, so that means that as a country, we have decided that Harper is the best choice for our future. We, as the people of that country, should stand behind the decisions of our fellow countrymen. Only when a country unites in both ideology and practice, can that country ultimately progress and become a stronger nation.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for constructive debate. Debate is absolutely necessary for the best selection of options, but when that debate becomes too focused on just attacking people and knocking people down, then I would rather not hear it. That's hate.

Why do haters all gotta hate?

I just think that since Harper got elected, let's try to make the best of it. There will always be those poeple who whine and complain, but let them do that. We're stuck with him for 4 years. We can either make the best out of those 4 years or b*tch and moan about it for 4 years. The choice is yours.

What say you?

Lord of the Flies - A Silent Critique

Based on the novel by William Golding, the 1990 film adaptation of the Lord of the Flies is somewhat an American-centric take on the whole issue. Directed by Harry Hook, and scripted by Sara Schiff, this second screen adaptation of the Lord of the Flies provides an interesting twist to the story. This adaptation follows the basic concept of young schoolchildren reverting to savagery when marooned on a desert island. The twist lays in that the group of British schoolchildren, present in both the novel and the first adaptation, is replaced by a group of American Cadets. Furthermore, the pilot survives the crash, unlike the fate of the pilot in the novel.

The film stars several relatively unknown actors; those of Balthazar Getty (as Ralph), Chris Furrh (as Jack), and Danuel Pipoly (as Piggy). None of these actors give a particularly outstanding performance, thus failing to bridge the hiatus between literature and film. The violent inner struggles and so-called loss of innocence so enshrined in the novel, failed to present itself to the viewers of this film adaptation. Perhaps it is the actors' unfamiliarity to the situation, both physically and mentally. Physically, the young actors were far from home, filming on a remote island in Jamaica. Mentally, the young actors most likely had no established preconceptions concerning the vices of murder, avarice, and want. In their performance, they seemed incapable of portraying the necessary emotions to create atmosphere. The relatively static performance by the other supporting characters further damage the coherent presentation of the film.

In comparison with Brook's 1963 film, is seems that the second screen adaptation trivializes the themes and intensity of Golding's cult novel. The ineffectiveness of this film may be attributed to the fact that it is only a short 90 minutes in length. Although many a misled soul has argued that this film proved more dynamic and interesting to watch, the trade-off was a loss of the build-up of suspense and accuracy of content. Characteristic of American films, with its more happy-go-lucky nature, content that was harder to digest was often omitted. Take for example Golding's focus on the loss of innocence. In Golding's novel, and even in Brook's 1963 adaptation, much more emphasis was put on the cruel and gruesome nature that the boys had slowly taken on. It was almost as if the boys had themselves become the living reincarnation of Lucifer, each and one of them. Their innermost rage, fear, and cruelty was unleashed on one another, and led to many unspeakable crimes. Due to the undiscriminating nature of the American film audience, and the drive for higher ratings, this relatively deeper substance was cut from the film. The adult-like cruelty of Golding's boys was replaced with the boiled-down version; something akin to mere school-yard bullying. It seems almost impossible to present to the film audience of the 1990's that a group of boys would become savages. Remember that this was the age of conformity, obedience, and yuppie suburbia. The audience did not want to see it, and so the producers did not show it.

The length of the film was just not enough to cover the breadth of the novel. Whereas the novel developed every nook and cranny into canyons and streams, the film merely filled them with sand. The main characters were not completely developed. Over the course of the film, Simon did not have the many close-ups necessary to complete his image as the Jesus figure. Jack's ambition seemed only half-hearted, and Piggy's rounded-ness seemed more noticeable than his intellect. Ralph however, seemed to be the biggest disappointment. Whereas Ralph came across as the perfect and natural leader in the novel, he seemed like a frail and nervous kid in the film. His dominance failed to show through, and greatly undermined his symbolic stance as an arbiter of society. Needless to say, there was even less time to develop the supporting characters. Sam, Eric, Roger, and countless other characters seemed merely static throughout the whole film. Rather than being the dynamic catalysts and distractors making the novel exciting, the other characters were only briefly shown. Overall, they were more like 2D figures than the 3D dynamic characters they were supposed to be.

All in all, the film was not horrible to watch as a supplementary resource. Although the relevance and quality of production is questionable, the main themes of Golding's “Lord of the Flies” were carried out with reasonable assurance.

A Declaration of Rights and Liberties

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all individuals, no matter age, race, gender, nationality, or sexual orientation, are granted certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, democratic governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

If a democratic government is one by the people, for the people, then democratic education should be one by the students, for the students. Schools, indeed, are places of learning, undertaken by the student. When the student has no power to influence decision, then he is rendered a majority ruled by the minority. By definition, such concentration of power, and lack of self-determination thereof, renders the democratic education non-existent; instead erecting a bureaucratic oligarchy, and intrusion on the enumerated right of Canadians to have the right to a democratic form of government. In all respects, the school board and respective administrations become the microcosmic representation of government.

Students are often disregarded as equal members of society. The inherent truisms which grant inalienable rights and liberties should be applied across the board, regardless the age, race, gender, nationality, or sexual orientation of persons. We no longer live within the bounds of archaic thought, which dictates that there exists first-rate and second-rate citizens. The established precedent for Civil Rights legislation and judicial endorsement of civil liberties affirms our belief that all men, women, and children, receive equal protection under the law.

We see as inherent those rights and liberties found in the freedom of speech and press, the freedom of religion, the freedom of assembly, the right of privacy, the right of procedural due process, and all other enumerated rights of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Should the basic rights of students be infringed upon, then it is the right of the students, it is our duty, to reevaluate the institution of education, and check the powers of arbitrary despotism. It is indeed our duty to ensure that the enlightened values of democracy, upon which this great nation was built, be not engulfed by such bureaucratic and authoritarian values. Let the foundations of this nation, where the voice of the people is heard, ring loud and true.

On the one hand, the Ministry of Education wishes to help the students become productive adults; mature citizens able to make the best decisions for the best outcome of our nation. When students turn 18, we are expected to file our first tax return reports, and make wise decisions with our ballot. We are expected to demonstrate involvement and not apathy towards society.

On the other hand, the Ministry of Education refuses to treat students with the respect and trust prescribed to responsible adults. We are not given the chance to make any decisions which would make a significant impact in effecting change. Even the student government, which is supposed to emulate government, is not given any legislative powers; except the power to decorate for dances, and the power to adhere to administration.

The school is essentially a microcosm for the greater community in which we live. Like the greater community in which we live, there is the government, and there is the governed. The government consists of teachers and administration, while the students are collectively known as the governed. Let it be known that we do not wish to argue the importance of such government. Without it, the schools could never function. However, we believe that a moderation is needed; in that we the students must be allowed to take a larger and more active role in the decision-making of our education.

How can we be expected to make the right decisions for the future of our nation when we have never been taught to do so? In fact, we have been taught to bow down to administration and teachers, and to never question the decisions of such figures of authority. Many students believe that teachers are always right, which can be attributed to the suspensions and other punitive measures handed out to students who dare challenge that authority. As some students have had the misfortune to hear, the principle's decision is an “executive-order” and it is “final.”

After having suffered through the trials and tribulations of such a system, can we still be expected to uphold the democratic traditions of our country, and be believers of equality throughout? Once such ideals of obedience and conformity are ingrained into our ideologies, it is extremely hard to get rid of. Then, contrary to popular belief, the lack of voter turnout at elections may not be due to ethnic loyalties, immigrant groups, or apathy, but simply that students who have now become “adults,” are unsure of how to act. There was simply no precedent. Why should one who has spent much of his life believing that his words and actions can effect no change to one institution, exhaust the time and energy to effect change to another institution, which he sees as simply a parallel to the afore-mentioned institution?