As a former school teacher, I expect more from Joy Smith, M.P., so I’m giving her an “F” on her latest self imposed assignment, a letter to Amnesty International (AI) on their recently leaked proposed policy document on legalized prostitution.
It is obvious to me that she didn’t read the document, or that she has very poor reading comprehension skills, as her letter posted on the Huffington Post website completely misrepresents what Amnesty International is (allegedly) trying to say.
I have to give her credit though. If not for her opposition to it, I would have never read Amnesty’s policy document, which is a well thought out and researched statement. It balances the rights of consenting adults to participate in activities that involve nobody else while still advocating that the state has a place to make sure that everyone involved is doing so of their own free will, without “coercion, threats, or violence”.
In Smith’s first sentence she goes off the rails, “I am writing to urge Amnesty International to reconsider its policy position, leaked to the public, which promotes the legalization of prostitution and the rights of pimps over the rights of victims of sexual exploitation.” The emphasis is mine, but it shows that she has not read the document. The entire point of AI’s position is to advocate for those who willingly choose sex work. They do not once advocate for pimps. The closest I can see is where they touch on laws like Canada’s “living on the avails” recently struck down by the Supreme Court.
The blanket criminalization of the clients of sex work, or of support functions such as
body guards and receptionists, has also proven to drive those engaged in sex work
underground, increasing the risk of violence and abuse. Where aspects of sex work
remain criminal, those engaging in sex work are less inclined to seek both routine care
and urgent protection. Moreover, the criminalization of “living off the proceeds of
prostitution,” while perhaps intended to cover those who exploit sex workers, has
been shown to apply to both help-functions (guards, receptionists, landlords), as well
as roommates, family, and even children.
This section is obviously aimed at the sex worker’s ability to procure safer work conditions for herself and the legal ramifications for those that may share any accommodation with her. It is not meant to be a defense of the coercion, threats, and violence of pimps, the entire document in fact seems to be about getting rid of the conditions that would enable pimps to flourish.
Ms. Smith goes on further to claim that AI’s position on individuals with disabilities is “highly offensive and degrading”” to the disabled community”. Here is the alleged offensive section.
Along similar lines, men and women who buy sex from consenting adults are also
exercising personal autonomy. For some—in particular persons with mobility or
sensory disabilities or those with psycho-social disabilities that hamper social
interactions—sex workers are persons with whom they feel safe enough to have a
physical relationship or to express their sexuality. Some develop a stronger sense of
self in their relationships with sex workers, improving their life enjoyment and
dignity. At a very basic level, expressions of sexuality and sex are a primary
component of the human experience, which is directly linked to individuals’ physical
and mental health. The state’s interference with an adult’s strategy to have sex with
another consenting adult is, therefore, a deliberate interference with those individuals’
autonomy and health.
Apparently Ms. Smith cannot face the reality that some disabled people, while having very real sexual needs, may not be able to find someone through typical avenues that may be able to help them fulfill those needs. It is a fact that in our society sex is not always an equal opportunity experience, and that some individuals may not have the same access to fulfilling their own natural sexual needs. Who am I to deny someone the fulfilling of their reasonable sexual desires with another consenting adult, just because that act may require an exchange of currency or other favours. It is in fact Ms. Smith who is highly offensive and degrading to those with disabilities as she somehow thinks that she is in the position to make their personal sexual choices for them.
Joy, it is none of your damn business.
As for her contention that Amnesty is abandoning victims, she again goes off on a tangent. She starts talking about under-age victims of the sex-trade. Repeatedly Amnesty International states that their policy is about consenting adults.
Amnesty International considers children involved in commercial sex acts to be
victims of sexual exploitation, entitled to support, reparations, and remedies, in line
with international human rights law. States must take all appropriate measures to
prevent violence and exploitation of children. The best interests of the child should, in
all cases, be a primary consideration and the state should preserve the right of the
child to be heard and to have his or her views given due weight in accordance with
their age and maturity.
They repeat this position multiple times throughout the document. Amnesty International is against the exploitation of children, there is no doubt about this. Ms. Smith’s blatant dishonesty about this fact is disappointing.
Even in her closing argument, Smith refers to a study that shows correlation between legalizing sex work and human trafficking. Even the authors of said study state in their conclusion the following:
However, such a line of argumentation overlooks potential benefits that the legalization of prostitution might have on those employed in the industry. Working conditions could be substantially improved for prostitutes—at least those legally employed—if prostitution is legalized. Prohibiting prostitution also raises tricky “freedom of choice” issues concerning both the potential suppliers and clients of prostitution services. A full evaluation of the costs and benefits, as well as of the broader merits of prohibiting prostitution, is beyond the scope of the present article.
I do not have any problem with the fact that Ms. Smith has an opinion that is opposed to legalizing prostitution in Canada, she has the right to an opinion. My problem is with the fact that she misrepresents the position of those who disagree with her. As she is a former science teacher, her inability to grasp the statements and facts in relation to this topic flabbergasts me. She has been given the tools to interpret what she is reading, yet fails to.
Fine, she doesn’t like prostitution, but that doesn’t mean that it should be illegal. Yes, we should have controls on sex work so that it can be practiced safely and legitimately in Canada, and Amnesty International said as much.
It is obvious that the Conservative Government of Joy Smith and Peter MacKay is about to foist on us a new prostitution law based on the “Nordic Model”, which aims to protect sex workers by criminalizing their customers. It does not take a brain surgeon to realize the inherent problem with this plan. Because the customers are criminalized, the sex worker must then go to the places where the customers are. This puts her right back in the dangerous conditions that the Amnesty document and the Supreme Court of Canada decision were trying to rectify. Any rational person will see after some thought that such an approach will end up back at the SCoC where it will again be struck down. The Court’s decision made it clear, at least to me, that reasonable laws that respected the sex worker’s right to ply his or her trade would be acceptable, but that those which put unreasonable limitations on their ability to earn a living would be struck down. This is not very difficult to understand.
Perhaps Amnesty’s opening paragraph puts it best:
Amnesty International is opposed to the criminalization or punishment of activities
related to the buying or selling of consensual sex between adults. Amnesty
International believes that seeking, buying, selling and soliciting paid sex are acts
protected from state interference as long as there is no coercion, threats or violence
associated with those acts. Legitimate restrictions may be imposed on the practice of
sex work if they comply with international human rights law (i.e., they are for a
legitimate purpose, appropriate to meet that purpose, proportionate and nondiscriminatory).…We believe that a policy based on human right principles that values
the input and experiences of sex workers is the most likely to ensure that no one
enters or stays in sex work involuntary.
If Peter MacKay and Joy Smith could craft a law that would meet that statement, we would have something that would stand up to the Charter, therefore surviving legal challenge, and would respect the rights of all Canadians.
