LibertasPost

Alright, here's the deal. I'm one of those libertarian types who believes prostitution should be legal. Whenever the practice is driven underground, it leads to more violence toward working women and more deaths. It's a bad idea to make prostitution illegal—to make it legal introduces the prospect of regulation, at least.

With this in mind, I have one thing to say about Ontario Superior Court Justice Susan Himel’s recent ruling decriminalizing the practice of prostitution in that province: good.

As Kirk Makin reports in the Globe:

“A Superior Court justice gutted the federal prostitution law in Ontario on Tuesday, allowing sex-trade workers to solicit customers openly and paving the way for judges in other provinces to follow suit. Justice Susan Himel struck down all three Criminal Code provisions that had been challenged—communicating for the purposes of prostitution, pimping and operating a common bawdy house.

The decision will take effect in 30 days unless Crown lawyers return with arguments that are strong enough to persuade her to grant a further delay, Judge Himel said.

Her landmark ruling drew immediate fire in Ottawa, which has little time to regroup and battle the judgment. A domino effect of judicial decisions could quickly topple prostitution laws across Canada, as happened several years ago with prohibitions against gay marriage.

[...]

[Co-litigant and former prostitute Valerie] Scott said that prostitutes will begin pressing immediately for a regulation regime that includes workers' compensation, health standards and inclusion in the country's income-tax scheme. "We don't have to worry about being raped or robbed or murdered," she said.”

It seems that Ottawa is, indeed, going to appeal this decision.

I guess they don't want to risk losing the framework of anti-prostitution laws that have been put in place in Canada. Personally I find that kind of offensive—like we can't be trusted with our own moral health—but whatever. They can do what they like.

But this ruling struck a blow for a very liberal position, and from now on the debate over prostitution law in this country is going to be irrevocably changed. Good for Justice Himel.

Not everyone is quite as supportive of the decision, however. A representative of the socially-conservative crowd, National Post columnist Barbara Kay writes:

“Many libertarians will applaud the legalization of prostitution, which is in theory a victimless crime. The reality is that high-end prostitutes already know how to look after themselves, while low-end prostitutes are usually just trying to get from one drug fix to another. They will have little interest in pre-screening their johns, because they are desperate women. Does anyone really believe that they are going to spend their money on an "office," advertise their services, keep accounts, submit to regular health testing and pay taxes on their income? Dream on. Does anyone really believe that pimps will then become vacuum-cleaner salesmen?

The danger to prostitutes will continue, because the kind of men who frequent prostitutes and the kind of men who control them don't have a lot of respect for them on the whole. Nor should they. Being a prostitute is a shameful, indecent activity, and any sex worker who demands respect as a matter of course is fooling herself. She is not respectable. Politically correct people will say she is, but she isn't. The danger will continue, the pimps will still control the desperate girls and society as a whole will think less of itself. And all because nobody really takes a good look at the word "harm" and asks themselves what a healthy society looks like, and what kind of newly designated "normal" behaviours, stamped kosher by the courts, bring harm to that healthy body.”

Now, with all due respect to Ms. Kay (and to those who agree with her), I think both of these arguments fall somewhat short.

A) Nobody thinks that pimps are going to become 'vacuum-cleaner salesmen'. Under decriminalization, however, when a pimp beats a woman, she can report it to the police. When you’re operating illegally or in a legal gray zone, going to the police isn’t really an option. Now women can go to the police when one of their clients or bosses starts to get rough.

B) Whether or not prostitution is a 'respectable' trade or not is irrelevant to this discussion. Whether or not what one does is worthy of respect shouldn't have anything to do with whether it's legal. To place the onus for maintaining our society's collective self-respect on government regulation is asking for trouble—moreover, it's downright lazy.

For my final thoughts in this debate, I turn to the wisdom of deceased comedian/social commentator George Carlin.

Should prostitution be legal? Take our poll: go to www.libertaspost.com and scroll to the bottom of the page.

Any comments, hate mail, or love notes? Drop me a line or four at dresdenmorrow@gmail.com, or give me grief on Twitter @wmorrow1.

Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/8725928@N02/3122939993/