Tag Archives: Susan Himel

Commentary

Andrea Mrozek responds to the Ontario prostitution ruling

5 Comments

This article from the Toronto Sun was written by Andrea Mrozek of the Institute for Marriage and Family Canada.

Excerpt:

Following the path of Sweden by criminalizing Johns is one possible solution, with considerable support among women’s groups and anti-human trafficking activists across the globe.

The Swedish model prosecutes the buyer.

“A person who obtains casual sexual relations in exchange for payment shall be sentenced,” reads the law, “…to a fine or imprisonment for at most six months.”

The government there simultaneously helps women out of the industry, with shelter, counselling and job training — and a hand out is what prostitutes need. After all, 90% of prostitutes say that’s what they want.

A Swedish independent inquiry published in July 2010 says the results have been a success. Prostitution, organized crime and human trafficking have decreased.

This is in stark contrast to other countries, like neighbouring Finland, where purchasing sex is allowed. In Sweden, about 400 to 600 women are trafficked into the country annually. In Finland, 10,000 to 15,000 are.

I think this is a good, evidence-based, case against legalizing prostitution. Notice how she cites actual outcomes in other countries to show the impact of changes in law on society.The IMFC is basically a family and marriage policy think tank. They have conferences, they publish research papers, and they engage the culture. They are affiliated with Focus on the Family Canada. What I find exciting about the IMFC is that get their positions on social issues published in mainstream news publications. Can you imagine? And the reason why they can do that is because they are good at research. And good research influences policy makers and public opinion.

But sometimes people make statements that just express their feelings and opinions – not what is really true. And they don’t supply evidence for their views from neutral sources, either. I was arguing with a guy on Facebook recently about gun control. I offered two pieces of evidence to him: 1) the 1997 gun ban in the UK that doubled violent crime rates in four years, and 2) legalizing concealed-carry in certain US states drastically reduced violent crime rates. For the life of me, I could not get him to talk about whether firearm laws (liberal or conservative) affect crime rates. I think we need to take a lesson fro Andrea Mrozek and talk about policy issues using evidence. No one cares about feelings, opinions, sob-stories, whining, blaming, complaining and name-calling. Just. Use. Evidence.

News

Female judge strikes down laws prohibiting prostitution

42 Comments

Here’s the news story from the National Post.

Excerpt:

In her decision released Tuesday, Justice Susan Himel concluded that prohibiting sex-trade workers from operating a common bawdy house, living off the avails of prostitution and communicating for the purposes of prostitution, violate the Charter of Rights.

“I have found that the law as it stands, is currently contributing to the danger faced by prostitutes,” Judge Himel wrote in a 131-page ruling.

The three sections of the Criminal Code ruled unconstitutional, “force prostitutes to choose between their liberty interest and their right to security of the person,” she said.

The long-awaited decision stems from a constitutional challenge initiated last year by three women involved in the sex trade.

“It is important to state at the outset what this case is not about: The court has not been called upon to decide whether or not there is a constitutional right to sell sex or to decide which policy model regarding prostitution is better,” Judge Himel said. “Rather, it is the court’s task to decide the merits of this particular legal challenge, which is whether certain provisions of the Criminal Code are in violation of the Charter.”

[…]“We want to be good citizens and now we can,” said Valerie Scott, executive director of the Sex Professionals of Canada and one of the three women in the constitutional challenge.

I think I understand women fairly well, and I think that what was going through Susan Himel’s head was something like this: “if I make this legal, then women who do this sort of thing will feel a lot better about it, because no one will judge them since it’s legal”.

Barbara Kay weighs in here.

I read one feminist web site that called Ms. Himel’s decision “Excellent News”, but I didn’t want to link to them. I would say that legalized prostitution is consistent with feminism’s promotion of non-marital sex as a way of eliminating the unequal gender roles inherent in marriage.