Margaret Dwight-Spore

pp. 23-26

Speaking up for our sisters

Decriminalization of prostitution

"An attack on welfare women, or on prostitutes, is an attack on all women - keeping us in line; to keep us all working for nothing. We women are pitted against each other as if our problems and our work were not the same.
– Margo St. James, COYOTE (Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics)

"Money for prostitutes is money for women… To turn back the rising tide of our refusal to be penniless, the Man makes sure that part of the job of being a prostitute is to be used as a sign to other women of where the bottom line is — to be labelled as a whore and an unfit mother, a Negress, a loose woman. So that part of the job of being a prostitute is to be made an example of what it costs us to refuse the poverty the Man forces on us to live in, to be a whip against other women to make sure that they strive to be "respectable" though poor."
– Wilmette Brown, Black Women for Wages for Housework

Prostitution is called the oldest profession in the world. No matter what type of prohibition is established, the sex trade still goes on. It is easy to understand that the fact of prostitution has often been unsettling to many people; the question is: should it remain a crime?

The demand for prostitutes is so great that despite the risk of imprisonment women continue to find a market for their sexual services. In this trade, women are able to earn salaries comparable with those of their clients. The fact that most prostitutes don't hold onto this money is a definite problem. The law is only beginning to address itself to the male demand for expedient sex, the economic needs of women, or the pervasiveness of pimping in our society. It is still clearly discriminatory and stigmatizing.

The purpose of this article is to examine to what extent the law creates or contributes to the real evils of the trade, and to consider the possible benefits of decriminalization. Since the act of prostitution is itself not illegal, decriminalization means removing from the Criminal Coe the following laws which surround the act: soliciting, being an inmate of a bawdy house, keeping a common bawdy house. The following is an attempt to provide some answers to the questions most commonly asked when a discussion of the decriminalization of prostitution occurs.

Why are there laws against prostitution?

Prostitution is considered an immmoral activity, harmful to women. The rold of the law is, in this case, to uphold the moral standards of the community and protect individuals. The purpose of the law is to stop prostitution.

Is the law effective?

No. The moral standard which the law upholds is actually the double standard: sexual promiscuity enhances a man's reputation and ruins a woman's. in the vast majority of inmate and solicitation cases only the women are arrested. Martin's Canadian Criminal Code on soliciting reads:

Every person who solicits any person in an public place for the purposes of prostitution is guilty of an offence punishable by summary conviction.

However, for a man to offer a woman money is somehow not considered soliciting; accepting the money is. Undercover police often use offers of money to entrap women.*

But reverse the situation: a woman with a car (who may or may not be a prostitute) offers a man a lift. She may well be suspected of soliciting, and later stopped and questioned by the police. Practices like this reinforce female passivity. The act of soliciting is condoned in men and condemned in women. Furthermore, in instances where attempts have been made to press charges against the client, it is usually his word, and that of the arresting officer, against hers. Both men are well-respected in the community; she is but a whore.

How can that be a fair trial… when it is repeatedly reduced to a question of the veracity between an accused person and a police officer? One can hardly escape the impression that… many of them (police) act on their moral certainty of a woman's guilt that they do not hesitate to invent the evidence on which she would be convicted, and that, in effect, they behave as judge and jury as well as arresting officer and agent provocateur. Can we trust our police always to protect the innocent if they do not respect the rights of the guilty.
– Excerpts on court procedure from Cast the First Stone, Judge John Murtagh and Sara Harris.

How is prostitution regulated?

The negative side effects of the law and some old-fashioned solutions are as follows: fines from $100 to $500 for anything from loitering to soliciting are large enough to force a prostitute to work overtime, creating a vicious circle of arrests and payoffs. Jail often exposes her to more serious criminal activities. There is not much opportunity for a convicted prostitute unless she would like to be someone's private secretary, perhaps finding herself in essentially the same job, earning less money. She can get welfare, or be rehabilitated, and enter into the already over-crowded "legitimate" job market. Rehabilitation, unfortunately, cannot remove the stigma attached to her past. It is important that social agencies begin to provide adequate services for the prostitute who feels victimized by her profession.

Clean-up campaigns, often advantageous for politicians, tend to push prostitutes into the hands of organized crime and their escort services, go-go dancing agencies, and bodyrub parlours. In some places, such as the state of Nevada, and in Germany, the government prefers to put itself in the place of organized crime and run licensed brothels. The women are not allowed to choose their customers, and the 50% rake-off of their pay remains the same under State control. They cannot have boyfriends, or socialize outside the house or sector. Zoning, another so-called solution, tends to ghettoize the prostitute, and increase the client's risk of being mugged or robbed. Witness the Combat Zone in Boston.

In Canada the laws surrounding prostitution are federal. Some cities have managed a de facto legalization of prostitution by issuing licenses to bodyrub parlours. In an apparent attempt to curb the growing number of parlours in the downtown area, Toronto closed down the parlours that could not afford the $3,300 licensing fee. To appease the moral conscience of the public, the City can continue to arrest prostitutes for soliciting, being inmates, etcetera. However, to assure the business community that free enterprise is alive and well, the City can allow owners to profit from the prostitute's work. Finally, the Government gains revenue from both fines and licenses.

During a clean-up campaign, the woman who still wishes to work on the street, or who has to because the agencies have been closed, is forced to find a new neighbourhood. The result, according to police and certain local politicians, is an "alarming increase" of on-street prostitutes, and the accompanying fear that they might annoy pedestrians. (Police Chief Adamson of Toronto answered residents' complaints by suggesting that the Vag-C law, abolished in 1972, be brought back. Vag-C enabled the police to question any unescorted woman on the street, and was a gross infringement of the civil rights of all women.) Curiously enough, few men seem to be suffering from the advances of prostitutes. Local complaints of harassment have all been aimed at men. Women who make these complaints have been told it is the fault of another group of women — prostitutes.

Non-prostitute women who are harassed by men on the street should realize that the absence of prostitutes would not substantially change the situation, as all women, regardless of their status, suffer public insults from the male sex whether or not they are in an area of publicized prostitution. To infer that laws punishing prostitutes will stop street abuse of other women is definitely "putting the cart before the horse." After all, it is the desire of men which leep prostitutes on the street, not vice versa. Laws against assault, creating a public disturbance, should be used to control male solicitation.** it is time the onus was put on the man for the way he expresses his sexual need, rather than on the woman for being attractive and available.

What about pimps?

At the moment the only man who will befriend the whore and accept the fact of her prostitution, is the pimp. Yet the prostitute's desire for a warm, loving relationship is essentially the same as any other woman's. And her fear of arrest and robbery often forces the prostitute to seek protection and guidance from pimps. Although decriminalization would not eliminate the voluntary use of pimps, it would at least enable women to run their own affairs.

Laws against coercion and procuring women for others should remain on the books. New laws controlling the unfair profit of agencies should be drafted. Consciousness raising through sex education would help women feel more confident and prevent intimidation. The attitude of men would change as well. Pimps could become less of a necessity. In an prohibitive market a number of parties prey on the prostitute. Some of these are: the police, the government, and the wealthy sex entrepreneur.

Does the law benefit anyone?

The law benefits all those persons wishing to use prostitutes as informants, disposable spies, or for corporate entertainment. it benefits the police, the Mafia, and the large corporations. Moreover, the enforcement procedure supplies a substantial body of work for well-paid police, lawyers and court officials.

Won't decriminalization encourage prostitution and further the exploitation of women?

Persons of this view are urged to consider the many implicit forms of sexual bargaining condoned in our society. Advertising is the main culprit. A Laura Secord billboard tells us; "The smile on her face is worth it," (one box of Laura Secord candy). The unfortunate part of such subtle sexual bargaining is that the men rather than women profit from it. Sexual bargaining is more apt to be institutionalized as standard fare for women under the present discriminatory laws or a licensed brothel system.

Decriminalization, by eliminating the sexism of the law and its enforcement, would open the pathway to social change.

Why are advocacy groups for prostitution necessary and how can women support an end to the discrimination against prostitutes (and thus all women)?

The fact that prostitutes are not directly represented in government makes it difficult to believe that controls will be administered equitably. Any regulations concerning the business must take into account the views and concerns of the workers themselves. Organized advocacy groups such as C.O.Y.O.T.E. (Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics) in San Francisco and P.L.A.N. (Prostitution Laws Are Nonsense) in England are currently studying regulation problems. What works in one country may not work in another. B.E.A.V.E.R.*** (Better End All Vicious Erotic Repression) is Canada's first organizational voice for prostitutes and other workers of the flesh; and end to the use of non-related legislation (i.e. loitering) to control prostitution.

Prostitution is not going to stop until the demand goes away and the status of women is upgraded throughout our whole society. Meanwhile, it is important that women are aware of the economic and social basis of prostitution and find some way to improve the status of the women involved, not further demoralized them as criminals.

* Due to recent court battles in Ontario, the public nuisance element of soliciting has been extended to include as offenders those men who pursue women for the purposes of paying them for sex. Although it goes without saying that if prostitution is not decriminalized then both parties should be equally penalized, I do not believe that punishment is a feminist solution to the problems surrounding prostitution. As well, this enforcement amounts to class legislation as both parties involved in on-street solicitation are usually from the lower economic classes.

** to the current "clean-up" campaign in Toronto, police-women are now charging men with disturbing the peace by impeding pedestrians.

*** B.E.A.V.E.R. informs us that they would be happy to offer more information on request. Their address is Box 38, Station "E", Toronto, Ontario.