NDP MP: SELLING YOUNG GIRLS PART DEUX
In the comments section, someone re-iterated to me that this would be a co-op. That got me thinking...Many hookers discriminate based on issues such as race and age (ie. they will only see clients of a certain ethnicity or age); will this still be allowed?
Similarly, even within the realm of the sex trade, hookers who perform certain acts (pertaining to specific and messy scatalogical bodily functions) are looked down upon; would all hookers be required to perform these acts in the name of equality?
What about quality control? Vintners in Ontario have the VQA; meat packing companies and the health industry have quality control units; will we have to pay a group of people to use prostitutes to make sure all of the techniques used are up to snuff.
What if some are not up on the basics? Will we issue them a training manual with diagrams?
Some hookers go way above and beyond the call for duty with regards to outfits such as police officer, PVC Nun, dominatrix etc. You get the idea. Will the government allow a budget to all prostitutes in the name of equality?
Will they be allowed in public schools on career day? Yeah, I think we know the answer to that one.
What if a prostitute only wants to service opposite sex clients? Will they be required to perform for same-sex clients as well? I mean, if it is government regulated, we can't discriminate.
What if a straight 'john' books a female hooker who it turns out is not available but a transgendered prostitute is; if the john refuses, can they be taken to a human rights tribunal?
What if a gay hooker is used to being a top; will he have to learn to be a bottom, even if it causes medical problems?
We are not allowed to discriminate in employment for people who have HIV/AIDS; would the same go here? What if they use protection? Will that be good enough? If you think that is over the top, remember the brouhaha over the Red Cross blood donation policies.
What of discrimination based on looks; something tells me that in their quest for equality, government run brothels would have a very low standard of looks for the hookers. You would probably go in looking for someone like Angelina Jolie in thigh high boots and garters and have to be content with someone who looked like...well, Libby Davies in really comfortable shoes and sweat socks.
The more I think about this...this is an idea so stupid; so magnificently and profoundly sub-moronic, it could only come to pass. Canada would not have it any other way.
posted by Nicol DuMoulin @ 1:38 PM
7 Comments:
You didn't go far enough. If its a legal profession then is it possible to cut people off from Welfare and/or UI if they refuse to accept the job referral? If the stigmatism is suppose to be removed then it would be inappropriate at the very least for people to refuse the position based on an adversion to the activity on any grounds!!!
It is not the results of such a policy that matter. Only the intent. Remember, good intentions and good feelings are the basis by which progressives judge ALL government policy, regardless of how ineffective or damaging the policy actually turns out to be. What other explanation is there for their continued support for the gun registry?
As long as this proposal passes the the above litmus test, and gives the appearance of achieving some fashionable social objective, it is above questioning. Throw in the fact that it is non-profit, an employee-owned co-op no less, and progressives pretty much have all their bases covered. Anyone who opposes them will be labeled mean-spirited, right-wing bigots and intolerant Christian fanatics.
Since the gay marriage issue, social activists have been hungry for a new cause to get all self-righteous about. Somehow, "cities" and "urban issues" just haven't galvanized into the new socially desirable "outrage". But something like this, the rights of poor, exploited, drug-addicted women, has the potential to get the progressives' bleeding hearts beating wildly again. The only thing lacking at this point is a Charter ruling guaranteeing a woman's right to sell her own body for sex.
That actually happened in Germany. A woman job-seeker was told she could work as a (legal) hooker rather than lose her benefits.
The debate over legalization of prostitution seems to be a symptom of the debate between those who place emphasis on the public/common good of the whole versus the freedom of the individual to do what they want. We usually think of this in economic terms, i.e., the fiscal conservative/libertarian type (I should be able to choose how to spend my own money how I want) versus the left-leaning liberal/socialist type (we should take money from people through taxes and give it to others who have "less".)
But when it comes to moral issues (such as prostitution) there is a different right-left spectrum at work. In this case the right-leaning person usually emphasizes the common good (safety/protection of women from sexual self-degradation) versus the left-leaning person who emphasizes individual freedom (I can sell myself for sex if I want).
But some are more consistent in emphasizing the public good or individual liberty. For example, some on the right will say, "Lower my taxes significantly and let me use heroin if I want" (individual liberty on both fiscal and moral issues). Some on the left will say, "We need more social programs but we should keep heroin illegal" (the common good on both fiscal and moral issues).
Libby Davies happens to be a fiscal socialist and a moral libertarian. Damn how I hate her. And people like her.
Congratulations, you've just proven the insanity of "human-rights" law. I fail to see how this makes legal prostitution bad, however.
Prostitution is the abuse of women. That's why it is bad. It involves men taking advantage of financially poor, or unstable women.
Legalizing prostitution would create more problems than it would solve (if it would solve any). That's Nicol's point I believe.
Exactly. Thanks all for the comments.
Post a Comment
<< Home