Shelly Glover, police officer “on leave and planning to return to it once she’s out of politics,” is currently peddling in hysterics and trading upon her time as a police officer that worked undercover on the prostitution beat. Glover says that the laws that were struck down will make it more difficult for police to help exploited women and children – err, except that the laws against human trafficking and child exploitation remain in effect. The laws that were struck down were the ones that made women in those situations be afraid to go to the police for fear of self-incrimination, which seems like a bigger deal than police using those laws to arrest those same women, criminalise them, and hope that it might instead put them in touch with social services agencies while they were locked up. And then there’s her caucus colleague, Joy Smith, who a) doesn’t actually read the literature on the Nordic Model of prostitution laws except for the ones that are devoid of fact and tell her what she wants to hear, and b) conflates all sex work with human trafficking, and all human trafficking with sexual exploitation, which anyone with an inkling of how things work can tell you is a gross overreach. I’m glad that Smith thinks that it’s easy enough to criminalise the buyers of sex to curb demand – because that totally worked with things like alcohol during the prohibition era or illicit drugs today, right, and criminalising those very same drug users is totally saving lives in places like Vancouver’s Lower East Side, right? Oh, wait… Terri Jean Bedford, one of the plaintiffs in the case, says that any new laws need to take consenting adults into account, which may be difficult when faced with an ideology that the exchange of sex for money is inherently bad (while ignoring the other transactions for sex that occur as part of everyday dating and marriage). CBC looks at five questions arising from the Supreme Court decision.
Continue reading →