Bawdy blow

I don't often take on op-eds in rival papers but this one -- "Legalizing the purchase of women for sex won't make them safe'' -- just begged for a takedown. Authored by Janine Benedet of the University of British Columbia's law faculty, it is both misleading and inaccurate.

Right now, the sex trade is in the headlines because of the constitutional challenge to Canada's Criminal Code by three Ontario pros. Here's my take from yesterday -- and here's The Star's Rosie DiManno's coverage of the first day of the hearing.

Needless to say, we see it quite differently from most doctrinaire feminists.

So, anyway, Benedet...

Supporters of the prostitution industry want us to believe that women would be safe if men's purchase of women for sex is legalized.

Wrong. First off, they don't want the business ''legalized'' -- it already is legal -- but they want the right not to get killed while plying their trade. There's a distinction.

In the name of women's security, they are arguing in an Ontario court this week that male johns and pimps have a constitutional right to buy and sell women. 

Wrong again. They are arguing that they have a constituional right not to get killed on the job. They are arguing that, among other things, they should be able to have safe houses in which to operate, hire bodyguards and security or be able to put their live-in kids through school without their being busted for ''living off the avails,'' and that they be able to communicate with clients without getting into dangerous situations like some stranger's truck cab where they can be hauled off and murdered.

They are claiming that prostitution is women's work and that legalizing it would advance women's liberty. 

Wrong again again. There are male prostitutes too. And these guys have every right to do their thing as well without getting slaughtered, beaten up or busted for a legal act.

A closer look at the violent reality of prostitution exposes the utter fallacy of these claims.

First clause correct. Second clause, yes, well we just proved how fallacious they are, didn't we?

Now, obviously, Benedet, who writes from the murdered prostitutes capital of Canada, is much closer to the situation than I. So it's kind of strange that she spends the next 11 paragraphs on one isolated case without ever mentioning, oh, um, Robert Pickton.

Instead, she focuses on the recent conviction for second-degree murder of Andrew Evans, guilty of the 2007 killing of Nicole Parisien, 33, whom he hired via Craigslist.

It should be noted here that Parisien, like hundreds of other missing women in Canada, was aboriginal -- and that the Aboriginal Women's Action Network opposes decriminalization. (Read more here.) No question that most of these women would benefit far more from strategies that would keep them from harm from the moment they are conceived. Too many aboriginal women suffer from alcohol and abuse even before they have a choice in the matter.

But it does not seem that Parisien was one of these street women. Here's Benedet again:

Mr. Evans was by all accounts a regular guy – a former member of his university rugby team who had volunteered as a peer counsellor. But he was possessed of a sense of male sexual entitlement that led him to believe that he should be able to buy a woman who would meet his sexual demands and that she was worth so little that she could be physically assaulted when she failed to do so.

(And people accuse me of misandry?)

The guy was an alcoholic who admitted to heavily drinking plus taking drugs that night. This does not excuse him of course, particularly, as Benedet notes, Evans blamed his victim for his inability to sustain his erection.

That's why he blew up, beat and strangled her, wrapped up her body in the bedding, dragged it out of the apartment building through the rear and dumped it in the bushes.

Now, do you think Evans would have managed all that had there been some beefy security type standing outside the bedroom door? But that beefy security type is ILLEGAL because he (or she) would be ''living off the avails.''

Oh sure, as Benedet writes, there was a security camera, but was it monitored in such a way to do the victim any good?

Which brings us to her sloppy conclusion:

We need laws that support the abolition of prostitution rather than its normalization. But if the courts strike down the prostitution laws because they find that men have a Charter-protected right to buy women's bodies, it will become much more difficult for Parliament to enact a law that recognizes prostitution as fundamentally contrary to women's equality.

Yeah. because prostitution is a declining business we can legislate away. Because clients should have a Charter-protected right to beat and kill women -- which is how the law is now structured. Because we need laws to tell us how to manage our bodies without giving us the right to protect ourselves from those who want to destroy our bodies.

Oh lady.

Give us a break.

Comments

[Gerard Rejskind]

What an amazing column, Antonia! Of course the target is an easy one, but I hope this column is read (and understood!) by all who can make a difference.

[fern hill]

Yeesh. Fossilized feminism. Move on, already.

Women -- and, wow, men too -- are a pretty diverse gang. Many, many, many motivations for what we do. Some bad. Some not so bad. Some good.

Trying to help sex workers stay safe is good.

Benedet is an ass.

[hysperia]

I left this comment at your FB page but just thought I'd leave it here too because of the importance this discussion has for me.

I have no idea if I agree with Benedet overall but I don't have much problem with her op-ed. The Supreme Court Case, if won by the plaintiffs, will have the effect of protecting the rights of pimps and johns, even if it does also come to mean that there is some form of "freedom" for prostituted women. It will also mean that there will be some form of regulation and control of the industry. It will be up to the provinces. All the evidence I've ever read suggests that regulatory control outside the purview of the Courts will be sexist to the nth degree. Sex workers will scream about it but who will care? I think this is one of those incredibly difficult issues that provide problems no matter which way you turn. For me, it is just very difficult to figure out a way of protecting very vulnerable women while at the same time advancing the right of sex trade workers to ply their trade. It won't be First Nations women and drug addicted runaway abused teenagers who are in the organized, regulated trade. I've known far too many of the latter. I respect the rights of those workers to take this case before the Courts while at the same time I worry very much about how the piecemeal "resolution" of the issues through the Courts will actually harm everyone. But it's become one of those highly polarized issues in the feminist community and we aren't really talking about it anymore. I don't like the way people like Benedet are accused of being doctrinaire or disrespectful to sex trade workers. First because I don't believe it's true and second because I don't think it's helpful at all. It reminds me of the pro-Israel or you're anti-Semitic problem.

[Antonia]

Not sure how changing these three laws will protect johns, Hysperia. I wonder if you might explain why you say that.

Could striking ''living off the avails'' create and/or protect pimps? Maybe. But I think that, as long as a woman chooses to be in the trade, and remains in it freely, then she can have whatever association or relationship with men she wants.

Right now, if a woman is putting her husband through med school by hooking, she, according to the law, has a man living off the avails = pimp. If she is supporting her disabled live-in parents, she has people living off the avails. If she is raising a family, she has kids living off the avails.

And so on.

[hysperia]

Well, pimps live off the avails and that's one of the ways we get them, when we bother. Strike it and you don't have that charge, that's all. I'm not necessarily saying that's good or bad - I think it's complicated and I'm afraid I haven't decided, though I do hate fence-sitting. Thing is, I don't think Benedet is outright wrong or that her arguments are misinformed. Or that she has something against sex trade workers. I just object to the way we have the conversation. Benedet's getting hate mail and threats, I've heard. From the tenor of some of the comments from women, that doesn't surprise me. Frankly, it breaks my heart when feminists do this. The porn wars redux. Feminism and progressives alike seem to be brilliant at fragmenting themselves.

Or maybe I'm just too damned old for all of this.

[Daniela]

Masturbating into a human being's body is not a right.

Are you aware that the vast majority of women in the sex industry have experienced incest and/or childhood sexual abuse (85%)? These women and girls come to believe that their purpose in life is to be sexually used by the people around them – because it’s what they know.

o Using the same criteria developed by scientists who study long-term health in the military, researchers concluded that 2 out of 3 women in the sex industry suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder.
o Ariel Levy also says in this book how the world reinforcing prostitution with women survivors of incest & sexual abuse is comparable to getting shark attack survivors to become lifeguards.
o Porn actresses re-live their childhood experiences by getting into that industry. They are looking for attention, pleasing men, and being abused. And that’s all they know…a lot of these women are re-living what they know how to feel.
o No prostituted women I know, myself included, wants her daughter to be a prostitute. We know firsthand that it devastates the mind, body, and spirit.

Antonia, is it ethical for any human being to be bought and sold - or just women?

A former prostituted woman Trisha Baptie stated “Allowing a minority of women in prostitution to argue “choice” on the backs of the majority who are out there, in perfect storm of oppression, neglect, abuse, and human trafficking, is absurd.

Choosing exploitation doesn’t mean you’re not being exploited, and being female does not make you a feminist.

Did you know that sacred prostitution existed in ancient history – the miracle of birth coming out of a woman had finally been connected to heterosexual intercourse – and so prostitutes in sacred would have sex with men – but it was a spiritual rite.
o Just because prostitution seems to be the oldest profession, there is a marked distinction between the sacred temple prostitutes of ancient history and today’s drug-addicted and sexually prostitutes!
o Arguing that prostitution has been around since the beginning of time anyways, so we may as well try to work with it, is not only inaccurate but just settling for less.
o Pedophilia and murder have always occurred too – should we simply regulate them since we know they’re going to happen anyways? This is how low “sex worker” advocates have set the bar.

Nip the problem in the bud with the Swedish model – criminalize the demand, decriminalize the supply
o In Amsterdam, they have had to significantly reduce their red light district because of the marked increase in organized crime since they legalized prostitution.
o In Sweden, they have criminalized the demand/buyer and decriminalized the prostituted women/men – their trafficking rates have significantly decreased.
 Masturbating into a woman's is NOT a right. Disabled people who state that they have a right to sex by prostituted women ignore the fact that women have the right not to be pimped out by their governments.
 The systemic misogyny of legalizing and regulating prostitution fundamentally shows women and girls, men and boys, that women’s bodies are for sale to men buyers.
 The male buyers get a governmentally-reinforced sense of entitlement to just masturbate into a woman’s body instead of in his own hand over his basement toilet.
 The Swedish really works! We can do something constructive and successful about this!

The following are just 4 non-profits that have done the research regarding the harm of legalizing prostitution:

Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, a global non-profit with consultative status with the United Nations
Vancouver BC Rape Relief
Salvation Army, www.TheTruthIsntSexy.ca . The Vancouver 2010 Olympics are going to spike up prostitution and trafficking, which are directly related.
Resist Exploitation, Embrace Dignity

With respect,
- Daniela your fellow feminist supporter

[Andrea Mrozek]

I think Benedet points out that legal or illegal, prostitution is risky. And desires to make prostitutes safe--question is how.

The legalization of prostitution in New Zealand shows it doesn't make prostitutes safer.

Plenty of people desire that women (and men) are safe, and because of this think prostitution should be criminal. I believe Sweden has a good model on that.

[Jim M]

Not each and every kind of prostitute deserves protection under the law:

pros•ti•tute |ˈprästəˌt(y)oōt|
noun

• figurative a person who misuses their talents or who sacrifices their self-respect for the sake of personal or financial gain : careerist political prostitutes.

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

there was an excellent letter in today's National Post from John Purdy of Edmonton which sums up the issue very nicely ....

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/story.html?id=2088607

"To employ an analogy: There is a big difference between having a glass of wine with a nice candle-lit dinner for two and chugging after-shave in an alleyway. Prohibitionists would have us believe the former is merely the first step on a slippery slope to the latter. It rarely is."

I don't see why it can't be decriminalised, and have the cops sent after more worthwhile targets.

You could maybe comment on the letter. It's bit like G.K. Chesterton talking about the strange alliance between the teetotaller and the alcoholic.

They both view drink as a demon, whereas the moderate drinker views it as a drink

Maybe the porn merchant and the puritan could be viewed in the same way ...

[Martin Dufresne]

Well, at the risk of sounding like a "doctrinaire feminist" - gee, I thought only men's rightists used that kind of label... -I have to take issue with some of your points, Antonia.

1) Calling pimps "bodyguards and security" that women are being prevented from hiring must have had a few Hummers rocking with laughter downtown. Will we see human traffickers called "travel agents" next?
When women pride themselves on not having a pimp, do you not hear triumph in their voice and how they despise these low-lives who turn out women on the street and sponge off their pain? Sad that their reality is obscured by the official line presenting the law against pimping as keeping women from supporting children or disabled elders... What a crock! Give US a break, Antonia... Can you provide one example where live-in children or elders have ever been charged in this manner? ONE! I sincerely doubt you can. And yet, you feed us this preposterous line from the industry lobby.

2) You feign surprise at Benedet not addressing the Robert Picton murders. That is because she is arguing not that outdoor prostitution, such as that of Picton's victims, is dangerous - we all know that, as we also know that legalizing the indoor type has never stopped the outdoor one, contrary to the lobby's promises -, but that indoor prostitution is ALSO dangerous, contrary to the pap we are being fed by people just eager to open brothels and pimp new women all over the country.
Escorts like Parisien are killed every year in Canada, and it is a leap of faith to argue that these women are killed for lack of a legal bodyguard; if the law against pimping was applied, it would first and foremost target their agency owner, not the bodyguard he doesn't bother supplying them with. These women are killed by johns - and sometimes by pimps, oops bodyguards - because prostitution is based on women being treated as expendable, mere fodder for male privilege and misogyny, regardless of the extent to which they choose to be there. That is the bassis of prostitution and johns tell it in so many words in a book such as Victor Malarek "Th Johns: Sex for sale and the Men Who Buy It".

3) I am shocked that you indirectly accuse Benedit of misandry for telling it like it is about the murderer of Nicole Parisien. (I can't write a word more I'm too stunned.)

Thank you Ms. Benedet for standing up to the forces of neo-liberalism that make women like Parisien expendable when men's rights and good name are threatened.

BTW I thought the interview you gave The National tonight was perfectly on-target, when you pointed out how men - johns and pimps - had carefully been made invisible by the CBC "documentary" that preceded your debate with one of the lawyers defending the industry. That said it all.

[Lee Lakeman]

I sat in court to observe the murder trial to which Janine Benedet refers in her op ed piece. And yes as a feminist I also observed the Pickton case from the early years of police failure to the media circus. Interestingly those promoting the decriminalization and de facto legalization of prostitution ignored the details of both Pickton and the murder of Nicole Parisiene by Andrew Evans. If they both had been more featured you might have seen things differently. Both Pickton and Andrew “hired” women for indoor prostitution. The pig farm was a brothel and so was the apartment where Nicole was murdered. Both were used quite often by numbers of men. In Nicole’s case there was a security surveillance system run by an owner and on which her killer was captured. That is how the jury could see that he was not rendered incapable by his consumption of alcohol. I heard the evidence in that trial that Nicole was strangled by hand. Like many men before him, when the fantasy they paid for disappoints, Evans exploded. According to the forensics that explosion of projected anger took somewhere between 30 seconds and 3 minutes. He hit Nicole with a shoe so hard that the sole left an impression of treads on her face and could have cut off her oxygen. Andrew says he does not know whether he strangled her or hit her first. Contrary to your imagining, no “beefy security guard” could have saved her even if he was standing outside the apartment door. What I find so horrifying in the testimony of the case is what appears in so many cases of the beating and killing of women and in every case of prostitution: an unchallenged presumption that men have a right (paid for or not) to project onto women a responsibility to satisfy the sexual needs and wants of men. Benedet get’s it: the answer to tell men to grow up and stop risking women’s lives.

[Steve]

It would be nice if people like Benedet would refrain from using the language of slavery when refering to prostitution. Sex-slavery is all too real and the laws being challlenged are ones that help keep this crime from being discovered.