|
Christie Blatchford: Loving ‘Pretty Woman,’ and other reasons I think the Supreme Court’s prostitution ruling is right
Christie Blatchford
|
December 20, 2013 7:15 PM ET
Plaintiff Valerie Scott holds up a copy of the ruling issued by the Supreme Court of Canada striking down the country's prostitution laws at the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa Friday Dec. 20, 2013. Why I just can’t get vexed about the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision on prostitution and why I think Their Honours, albeit it at their usual tedious length, got it right: Maybe it’s because I embody Winston Churchill’s definition of an idiot: I was a conservative when I was young and now that I’m not, often to my own shock and horror, I’m a liberal. Maybe it’s because on some level, I suspect it’s sex itself which is inherently complicated and fraught with peril and which messes people up, not that there is a sex business. Maybe it’s because in my observation, there is so often a quid pro quo aspect to relationship sex — gorgeous young women with rich old guys, older gay men with beautiful boys, famous people with other famous people, lifeguards with lawyers — that I am hard-pressed to take offence when the transaction is merely franker. Maybe it’s because I grew up in northwestern Quebec, and my rough-and-tumble town had a bar called the Ranch Home Motel where there were bottomless strippers long before Ontario had topless ones. Maybe it’s because this was a source of great prideful glee in my family. Maybe it’s because, as the one (1) working girl I know once remarked, sex on any level can be considered demeaning or humbling, meaning paid-for sex doesn’t have a corner on that market. If you have a mirror on your ceiling, you will know she is right. If you don’t, have a gander at yourself naked; then have a gander at your partner naked; then imagine you are a stranger standing in a doorway watching the two of you together. Maybe it’s because I’m a product of the Sixties and grew up smack in the middle of the sexual revolution wrought by the birth control pill. If I never entirely got over the general notion that was still very much in the air at that time — good girls were virgins and bad ones were sluts or at the least worked at the Ranch Home Motel — it cannot be said that I didn’t give it a hell of a whirl, trying to disprove it. Maybe it’s because during my wildest years, I once encountered a handsome fellow named Drew (with the wisdom of age, I know this itself should have been a clue). “If you do that,” Drew remarked at a critical juncture, “I won’t call you again.” I did it anyway. He didn’t call. I didn’t care and even imagined, to turn a phrase, that I’d struck a blow for women’s liberation. (As previously mentioned, I have been an idiot all my life.) Maybe it’s because I don’t believe for a New York minute that the decriminalization of the sex trade — which in my view is the effect of the SCC decision — will mean a great whack of young men and women will “choose” prostitution as a career. Maybe it’s because if striking down the prostitution laws will keep a few people out of the hoosegow, to borrow from the late, great lawyer Austin Cooper, I think that’s a good thing. Maybe it’s because I have a ridiculous regard for hard work, and I don’t much care what the work is. And I suspect that for all that it may frequently involve a bed and a lot of laying about, prostitution is hard bloody work. Maybe it’s because I can’t stand those who would impose their morality on others
Maybe it’s because I figure, if it is the government’s will to still impose controls on the sex trade — for instance, over pimps and those who otherwise exploit and profit from prostitutes — it can still do that. But the SCC ruling, which gives Parliament a year to figure this out, means the government will have to be smart about it, so as not to infringe the constitutional rights of prostitutes. That is a prospect worth anticipating; I can’t remember the last time I thought to myself, of the federal government, “My, that was clever.” Maybe it’s because I’m a sucker for Latin, and the SCC decision, which departs from the now-outdated advisory opinion on some of the same issues it offered in 1990, references the doctrine of stare decisis, which is short for stare decisis et non quieta movere. It means, in full, “stand by the decision and don’t disturb the undisturbed,” and refers to the common law principle of adhering to precedent, or sticking with the guy who brought you to the dance. But when new grounds are raised and the law has considerably evolved, as in this case, even a lower court can revisit authoritative decisions. Thus, the opinions of 23 years ago could be properly disturbed. Euge! That’s the Latin exclamation of joy. I think. Maybe it’s because I can’t stand those who would impose their morality on others, and increasingly prefer the live-and-let-live philosophy. Maybe it’s just because I loved Pretty Woman, the 1990 movie about an escort (Julia Roberts) who was hired by a businessman (Richard Gere). They fell in love. Euge! Again. National Post
Commentary by the Ottawa Mens Centre The Supreme Court of Canada has turned into a Rubber Stamp for
feminist issues and while this decision on the surface is the right
decision, it illuminates how the SCC is prepared to hear "Gender
Correct" feminist appeals.
www.OttawaMensCentre.com
|