Relates directly to the very lively discussions we had on the Supreme Court prostitution reference -- and Dickson's "saved under s.1" holding. (That is, the good is greater than the individual loss of rights.) Dawn and I have both mentioned Prof. Alan Young of Osgoode before. Now I really remember why I called Alan so often in my investigative reporting days... pot and hookers, pot and hookers. And a controversial stand on each. Ken. -- How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others and render their happiness necessary to him though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. -- Adam Smith, 1759 The Theory of Moral Sentiments --- cut here --- Hookers deserve safe working environment ALAN YOUNG REASONABLE DOUBT TORONTO STAR Oct. 26, 2003 Here's an easy recipe for a public policy nightmare. Take one powerful, instinctive drive. Add a pinch of hysteria, a sprinkling of fear and a whole lot of misinformation. Pour it into the pre-shaped mold of state control called criminal justice. Let it stew for centuries and never check on the simmering concoction to see if it is tastes good. This is precisely the formula adopted in Canada to deal with the problem of prostitution, and it tastes horrible. This past week, Toronto police have been meeting with local prostitutes to recruit their assistance in tracking down a potential serial killer who may be terrorizing sex trade workers. While police continue to look for the bodies of prostitutes on the West Coast, the body count in Toronto stands at two for the time being. No one will ever really know how many prostitutes are killed every year because they often just go missing and no one really cares to look for them. Sex-trade workers have had an enormous fall from grace in the past millennium going from being sacred temple harlots to marginalized outcasts exposed to all manner of abuse. We will continue to dig up bodies of prostitutes on pig farms and in secluded urban alleys while we maintain imbecilic criminal prohibitions on commercial sex. You do not have to read Freud to know that our species is always on the lookout for sexual outlets, and when the pleasure does not present itself, some will go to the marketplace to buy it. There is nothing the state can do about this. Every time a prostitute is arrested, two take her place. This is a bottomless market. I'm sure cops, lawyers and judges sometimes enter this market, but to admit it would undercut their authority to prosecute and punish those who gave them release the day before. Prostitution is called the world's oldest profession for good reason. It flourished in biblical times. When Jesus reprimanded the priestly caste for wanting to stone a prostitute, this should have signalled the end of the punitive approach to this social dilemma. Jesus said only those without sin should cast the first stone. Somehow over the ages this has been transformed into a licence for a multitude of petty sinners to cast many stones in the direction of the hookers. We have been casting about 10,000 criminal charges a year, but the business continues to thrive. To dodge the stones, prostitutes are compelled to work in an environment full of risks and dangers. Pushing sex for hire into a black market opens a Pandora's box of horror. Hookers cannot rely upon state officials to protect them from evil johns. Many are compelled to work with pimps to secure protection and territorial exclusivity. The pimp is a pure manifestation of the worst excess of patriarchy, but he is also a creation of the criminal law. If we remove the blunt instrument of criminal law, and take a proper regulatory approach, hookers could oust their pimps in exchange for a safe working environment. The pimp of today may become the union steward of tomorrow. Between 1991 and 1995, 63 prostitutes were murdered in Canada. And 96 per cent of these victims were female. Surprisingly, only three were murdered by pimps; they prefer to terrorize the living. Fifty were killed by clients. Hookers have always been a prime target of serial killers and this is our proud legacy of prohibition. As more prostitutes disappear we must question the value of a law that allows a prostitute to work but denies the worker all the protections relating to occupational health and safety. We are clearly not protecting women with the criminal law when these very laws have exposed them to daily violence. I can understand the concerns of property owners and community members who don't want their street corners turned into drive-through sex shops. But this is a matter of proper regulation and the creation of red-light districts. It's unclear what we hope to accomplish with prohibitions on commercial sex. For many, it is not a matter of rational discourse but a visceral reaction to the commodification of sex. Many people consider sex sacred and believe making love shouldn't be commodified and commercialized. This Hallmark approach is fine, but why should a sanitized and idealized vision of sex dominate our field of vision. Many people see nothing degrading about paying for sex considering we have pretty much commodified everything else considered sacred in times past. Although human sexuality is complex, I see no reason to confine adult sexuality within a set of complex legal rules. I see only one legal rule of any real importance: For sex to be lawful there only needs to be consent and it should not matter whether the consent is secured by direct payment or weeks of expensive courtship with fine dining and false promises. The idealization of sex within the criminal law has never stopped anyone from paying for fellatio but it has led to lots of funerals for the professional fellatrices of this world. -------------------------------------------------- Alan Young is a law professor and criminal lawyer.