World's Oldest Profession and you

Colombian orchid photos courtesy Agnes Epp

Canada's prostitution laws have been struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Canadian government has one year in which to come up with something better. Read all about it here.

The outcries are coming from many directions, of course, as they generally do when “moral matters” and state law rub shoulders. In a sense, all laws are based on somebody's definition of what is moral and what is not, but when it comes to enacting a good law that satisfies the sensitivities of a multi-faith, multicultural citizenry, answers don't come easily. Take gay marriage, prayer in schools, family planning, war on drugs, gun control and now, prostitution, and you have an encyclopedia of passionate controversy.

Prostitution makes an interesting case study in and of itself and as a platform for thinking through religion/state separation and cooperation.

On its face, sexual prostitution responds to a basic biological need, namely the drive to extract pleasure from sexual behaviour with another person. The exchange of sexual favours for cash has been a feature of every age since the invention of money and writing, and likely before that. In a way, one could apply the innocuous,  simplistic, “you have a need, I have the means; let's make a deal,” description. Viewed in this way, sexual prostitution is not radically different from general commerce: for instance, people exhibit a need to witness violence, so fighters beat each other to bloody pulps in the ring, observers experience an “orgasm” of vicarious pleasure and the fighters are paid.

But the professional hockey player, the owner of theme parks, the movie actor and opera singer don't wear the patina of sexual taboo that sex workers do, the ones who are seen as “hard prostitutes.” It's surely for this reason that organized crime and pimps are attracted to the benefits of controlling sexual prostitution exchanges. When have we seen criminals kidnapping budding hockey players, transporting them overseas and selling them to the highest bidder among foreign hockey teams? How prevalent is the incidence of opera singers being forced to pay a portion of their salary for “protection?” That which is forbidden in law often becomes a commodity in the criminal marketplace; drug trade, tobacco smuggling, gun running, rum running are phenomena comparable to sexual prostitution in this light. 

As a Christian (albeit one who has been described as being notoriously liberal on social issues at times) I see prostitution as a very sad symptom of cultural and/or economic dysfunction. There are paths in our growing up that lead to being a john or a prostitute, a pastor or a used car salesman. There are paths in our growing up that lead to violence against—and exploitation of—other persons, as there are paths leading to generosity and empathy. It is at this level that Christian witness and service must be aimed: education, nurturing and an indefatigable fight against those forces that contribute to inequality and poverty.

Making better paths, in other words.

On the state level, the tendency is to solve problems and inconveniences legally. For one, this approach generally deals with the aftermath of transgression and anti-social behaviour and seeks to deter behaviours through punishment. For another, the lack of consensus in the population often means that legislation ends up taking its cues primarily from the interests of those who hold power at the time—and hope to maintain it—and those with commercial interests and the means to sway parliamentarians.

As churches, we are—or ought to be—about prevention. Waiting for the government to enact laws as if our church were the whole world both flies in the face of our preference for church/state separation and diverts us from the tasks we've been given in the world.

How our government tackles the legislative changes on this issue will be interesting to watch. It's touchy when 40% of the vote can provide any party with a majority. Eliminating prostitution through legal means is a pipe dream; curbing the exploitation of—and trafficking in—women by organized crime might be the best we can hope for; how to make that happen is the government's challenge in the coming year. Distasteful as it will be to some, state regulated brothels as in the Netherlands is one possible consideration that will emerge, like safe injection sites for addicts and liquor board stores for drinkers. 

 Prostitution as it exists in our cities today is symptomatic of social dysfunction, and is likely here to stay. Recognizing that, how does the church respond? how does government? If you know, tell me and I'll pass it on. Just click here.

"The law is . . . a bachelor"

 Still life

 

Gare de Jasper

Yet another expert on the TV news yesterday shared an opinion: that bullying should be made a hate crime, in this case. She undoubtedly has a point; hate crimes relate not so much to the holding of hateful opinions as to the instigation of hatred in others. Public taunting is clearly a deliberate effort at besmirching someone’s reputation broadly, whether it be with a clique on the playground or attendees at a political rally, hockey game, demonstration, indeed, any event where others can overhear the taunt.  

               Laws regarding slander and libel could be applied and the designation, “bullying” dropped. Given that there’s a mile of difference between slander perpetrated by an adult or by a 10-year old in a playground, the crime is the same: one person’s chances in life are diminished as the result of a deliberate attack by another person.

               Furthermore, the law must judge—in cases of slander and libel—whether the attack was deserved or not: if you steal my cow and I publicly announce that you’re a thief, no slander has been committed. The question of deserved or not becomes extremely murky with the taunting that typically occurs on a playground: “faggot” refers to same-sex orientation, but it’s a pejorative just like “nigger”, and a case could be made that no such put-down expression is ever deserved, in the legal OR moral sense.

               (I have, by the way, tried to work out the etymology of “faggot” as it’s used today—without success. In older English, a faggot is a piece of firewood and I speculate that when burning was a standard procedure for doing away with heretics, witches and homosexuals, calling someone a piece of firewood was tantamount to indicating that they were deservedly headed for the bonfire.)

               I hold out little hope that elevating bullying to “hate-crime” status would make much difference. There is something animalistic and visceral in the expression of hatred and vengeance, and the cure has to be sought somewhere else.

               In Dickens’ Oliver Twist, Mr. Bumble is told by the magistrate that he is responsible for the actions of his wife. He replies—famously—that: “If the law supposes that . . . the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.”

               I’m sure there are thousands of good teachers out there who would say that if the law thinks it can effect better relationships on the playground through harsher treatment of offenders, then “the law is a ass—a idiot.”

               Have I just committed a libel by denigrating members of the legal system, in writing?

You be the judge.

On Law and Order

Athabasca Falls celebrates its ten millionth birthday, possibly.

Our federal government is taking “law and order” steps in the interest of public safety that will probably require the construction of new--and the expansion of older--prisons and penitentiaries. No doubt, they’re responding to that impulse with which most of us grow up, namely that the way to deal with deviance is to make the consequences severe enough to deter potential offenders.

There’s some logic to that; if the penalty for speeding were to be changed from a fine to a prison term, I would probably keep a closer eye on my speedometer. On the other hand, states that maintain the death penalty are still obliged to execute people regularly and California with its “three strikes, you’re out” policy has jails bursting at the seams and little else to show for it’s get-tough stance. At least that’s what one study shows. Another shows that it has made a remarkable difference in safety, largely because fewer repeat offenders are on the streets.

In the Ancient Middle East, harsh penalties were the rule. A creditor, for instance, could enslave the child of a debtor, but if he abused that child to the point of death, his own son would be executed. Adultery was punishable by stoning the adulterers to death. In parts of the world today, amputations and executions are still the prescribed penalty for transgressions like homosexuality, theft or apostasy.

What teacher or parent hasn’t wrestled with the question of discipline through punishment? A large segment of the population lamented the discontinuance of “the strap” in schools, maintaining that it had a place in the correction of deviant behaviour. To a teacher or parent at wit’s end over the unruly behaviour of students or offspring, the application of corporal punishment will undoubtedly always spring to mind. Lashing out is a visceral consequence of rage and frustration.

There is, of course, a vast range of possibilities in the application of punishment as a corrective measure with the deliberate inflicting of pain and suffering at the one end and the curtailment of privileges at the other. There’s an enormous difference between enduring a public lashing and being obliged to observe a curfew for a certain period of time. Even if we believe that sparing the rod spoils the child, our thinking about the subject shouldn’t end there.

We “candy-assed liberals,” of course, preach prevention and rehabilitation as the primary defences against deviance. If we’re correct in saying that offences against society are bred in the unjust realities of discrimination, prejudice and poverty, then we should be taking a much greater exception to the government’s determination to change the world through harsher punishment. The voices of retribution are screaming out their message; the voices of reconciliation are silent, or at best, whimpering.

Where is the Plan B?