Prostitution has always been a contentious subject and the recent Ontario court ruling on the legalization of brothels- while maintaining that prostitution will remain illegal- has stirred quite a bit of controversy in the minds of Ontario citizens.
Those who oppose this ruling call it the first steps down a slippery slopes. Legalizing brothels hardly demonstrates the government’s discouragement of prostitution and sexual services. By allowing such services to be safely performed, legally housed, regulated and paid, as well as overtly performed, we are lowering the tolerance bar for prostitution- a service which is injurious to the safety of the community- and decreasing the deterrent on prostitution. At a time when the economy is down, young university graduates with loans to pay are unemployed and jobs are scarce, sanctioning brothels doesn’t send young adults a positive message.
Brothels are businesses, and businesses aim to profit. By making these constitutions legally and commercially available, profiteers will no doubt try to increase the number of clienteles and workers the brothels host, fostering prostitution and increasing the attraction for sex traffickers and other possible forms of abuse. By reallocating these constitutions and grouping them together, we risk creating a dangerous community, where under legal names, illegal crimes are committed. Concentration of such spots has always attracted violence or abuse, and it is highly possible that these brothels, in juxtaposition to their purposes, will expose both working prostitutes and the surrounding community to different perils.
It is now quite evident that I oppose this ruling. By opening the door to brothels, we let in more than what was predicted- this drastic decision will alter more conditions than what we intend. While it is important to protect the safety and livelihood of all citizens, regardless of their occupation, the nation must not do so by means of condoning a socially detrimental market of service. Safety hazards involved with prostitution must be addressed and resolved by a specific, long term plan, not by compromising legal restraints on the service itself.
Excellent response, Anna! :) Your reasoning is eloquently expressed and completely understandable. However, I'd just like the comment on a few things.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I'd just like to mention that the consensual act of exchanging money for sex between two adults has never been illegal in Canada; simply the communication because they are often displays of public indecency and they can disturb public order. Solicitation will still remain illegal despite of this court ruling.
With this in mind, isn't it reasonable to conclude that because sex workers will be less inclined to wander the streets when they have a safer option, brothels can help with the problem of solicitation? Moreover, isn't it slightly fallacious to assume that the government is encouraging prostitution to individuals suffering from tough economic times? Sex work, because it is not illegal in Canada, has always been an option; those who aren't willing to make that choice won't suddenly change their minds simply because they can now offer this service in indoor locations. The dangers (such as health risks) that make this job unappealing still exist, and the government can still take measures to discourage prostitution. For example while smoking cigarettes are legal, the government can still discourage it through the use of anti-smoking campaigns and taxation. Furthermore, it is true sex work has always attracted certain dangers, but isn't this exactly why it is even more important that we don't deny these individuals their right to security? Known areas of prostitution already exist; but by allowing these workers to organize themselves and take safety measures such as hiring bodyguards, isn't it true that we're reducing the amount of risks they have to face?
I do agree with you that sex work cannot be encouraged, and safety hazards involved with prostitution must be recognized and resolved with a long term plan. You explained your reasoning very well, and it is clear that we still have a long way to go in addressing this issue. Well done, Anna!
Well written Anna,
ReplyDeleteI view prostitution as one of those "problems",if you can call it such, that society will never be rid of. There will always be people looking to pay money for sex, and others willing to use their body to make money. Wouldn't you agree that "by allowing such services to be safely performed, legally housed, regulated and paid" we are minimizing the risks involved in this business? We'd be providing people a safer environment to do what they are going to do anyways, similar in some ways to BC's safe injection sites.
I agree. Prostitution will probably continue and the demand for it will probably never cease. However, the whole point of brothels is to provide protection. A street lined brothels housing sex workers (and these brothels would probably HAVE to be crammed together into certain districts because they can't just be dispersed among peaceful communities or near elementary schools/public facilities) would attract more attention and danger to these workers than would if they (the workers) were dispersed. Brothels would protect workers from a certain group of people/dangers, but attract a different, possibly more, dangerous group or force, so essentially they wouldn't be solving any problems than they would be be creating.
DeleteThanks for pointing that out Hannah! :) I was under the misconception that prostitution, much like soliciting, was illegal in Canada. Now knowing this, I understand that the new court ruling is not contradicting any previous laws regarding prostitution.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I still maintain my stance on this issue: though prostitution is indeed a legal profession in Canada, and thus its workers deserve equally safe working environments, legalizing brothels brings in a larger change than the specific change this ruling is trying to target- opening brothels carries more harm than good.
Prostitution has always attracted certain dangers, and these dangers are not merely associated with the soliciting and communicating aspect of the job, but the trade itself. By concentrating workers in brothels and limited areas of a town, we are creating a danger zone that attracts more attention, making these workers more vulnerable to danger. A larger group of sex traffickers and predators would be attracted to a more concentrated area of sex workers, and it is highly likely that these brothels, instead of providing the safety from street thugs and drug addicts, will expose them to a more dangerous group/force than what they have been protected from.
Legalizing brothels opens up the business doors for prostitution. This means they also have more room/power to pull in new workers and attract more clientele. Although the government may not promote this trade, by allowing brothels, they are 1)giving them a public establishment/officialism and giving them a place among socially accepted occupations such as teaching 2) help them to expand their business. Having a comfortable building to work in makes it easier for workers to recruit new workers, advertise their cause, and attract new clients.
I do agree with you when you say that the government is not trying to PROMOTE prostitution. Perhaps my word choice was a bit harsh, but what I meant to emphasize was that prostitution had always been an 'in the shadows' work- people could feel assured that it was done in a difficult or restraint manner. By legalizing brothels, constitutions which overtly display and foster prostitution, citizens are receiving the message that this trade is approaching a social norm, that it's being brought out from the shadows and being labeled as socially acceptable.
Indeed, it will take many trials, amendments and discussions between disgruntled law 12 students for a consensus to be reached on such a contentious topic.