Today I wrote a letter to my MP, Gordon O'Connor, and to Peter MacKay, who is not my MP but who is primarily responsible for me writing the letter in the first place, so I thought he should get a copy.
I've never written an angry letter to Parliament before. Did you know you don't need postage? What a remarkable country we live in.
=====
Dear Mr. MacKay and Mr. O’Connor,
I am a resident of the riding of Carleton-Mississippi Mills. Though I am not a member of the Conservative Party of Canada, I have been content to vote in favour of the Conservative nominee for Member of Parliament in my riding on more than one occasion, and I have heretofore not been given cause to question the wisdom of this action.
I am writing to you to call attention to bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act. It is my view that this bill is unconstitutional, immoral, poorly conceived, and ultimately would have a severely harmful effect upon the most vulnerable members of our society, should it be passed into law.
It is fundamental to the conservative viewpoint that government is an inefficient and unwieldy tool, and as such, interventions of government into the lives of the citizenry should generally be minimized. There is, however, a more prurient strain of conservative thought which abandons this philosophy when presented with an issue couched in moral terms. Prostitution is surely the most trying such issue, laying bare the division between those who believe most strongly in the right of the individual to pursue their own affairs free of interference so long as no harm is done to others, and those who see a role for government in regulating what is viewed as proper, moral behaviour.
Bill C-36 clearly proceeds from the latter conception. It supposes that prostitution is inherently immoral and inherently dangerous, an assertion explicitly made by Mr MacKay in this bill’s defense. It is conceived in the notion that rhetorical distinctions between the legality of purchasing and selling sex can offer some sort of shelter to people engaged in this activity while denying them the actual and enforceable protections that our country’s government and law enforcement institutions could, and should, provide. It supposes that prostitution can be eliminated and human nature altered by government decree and has no consideration for the likely harms that its prohibitions will inflict.
The government of this country possesses an awesome power, through the creation and enforcement of laws, and its monopoly upon the use of force for its own preservation. Being inherently mistrustful of such power and its potential for misuse, it seems self-evident that the government of Canada must always exercise such power in the most limited and judicious of fashions, in all cases concerning itself primarily with the impact of that exercise of power upon those most vulnerable to it.
It is clear, and has always been clear, that prostitution, however undesirable, will never cease to be practiced so long as humans persist upon the Earth, and so long as it is practiced, it is prostitutes themselves who are its most vulnerable participants. Any harm visited upon the industry of prostitution will be first and most direly felt by prostitutes themselves. Given this fact, it is imperative that the government consider, before all else, how to ensure that practitioners of prostitution are able to avail themselves most completely of the protection of the law and of the state. Any legal impediment to their ability to do this will inevitably result in the visitation of great harm upon some of the most vulnerable members of our society.
The name of this law clearly demonstrates the false understanding of cause and effect regarding the risks and consequences of prostitution. Prostitution is not inherently dangerous. It is presently dangerous because the government has vilified and criminalized it, and because the law forces it to be practiced in a dangerous fashion. Those who engage in prostitution are drawn to the practice from the most vulnerable segments of society, usually against their will, as a direct consequence of its illegality and the impediments created by the law against its safe, open and regulated practice. This is not an inherent characteristic of the act of prostitution, but an artifice created by the state through its enactment of prohibitionary laws.
Making prostitution illegal will not stop prostitution from happening, but it will force prostitutes to expose themselves to harm, and it will result in the deaths of innocent people. It is unconscionable that the government of this country would propose and seek to pass a law which will result, as a clear and obvious consequence, in the predictable victimization of its citizens. Moreover, the Supreme Court decision which resulted in the drafting of Bill C-36 makes it abundantly clear that such a consequence makes this law unconstitutional and unable to withstand an inevitable legal challenge.
It is incomprehensible to me that the government could expect this bill to be morally acceptable to the people of Canada, or considered lawful and compatible with the Constitution and the judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada, should it be passed.
I urge you in the strongest possible terms to reconsider this bill.
Should this bill be passed into law, I will be morally unable to support the Conservative Party of Canada in the next federal election.
Yours sincerely, etc.
I've never written an angry letter to Parliament before. Did you know you don't need postage? What a remarkable country we live in.
=====
Dear Mr. MacKay and Mr. O’Connor,
I am a resident of the riding of Carleton-Mississippi Mills. Though I am not a member of the Conservative Party of Canada, I have been content to vote in favour of the Conservative nominee for Member of Parliament in my riding on more than one occasion, and I have heretofore not been given cause to question the wisdom of this action.
I am writing to you to call attention to bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act. It is my view that this bill is unconstitutional, immoral, poorly conceived, and ultimately would have a severely harmful effect upon the most vulnerable members of our society, should it be passed into law.
It is fundamental to the conservative viewpoint that government is an inefficient and unwieldy tool, and as such, interventions of government into the lives of the citizenry should generally be minimized. There is, however, a more prurient strain of conservative thought which abandons this philosophy when presented with an issue couched in moral terms. Prostitution is surely the most trying such issue, laying bare the division between those who believe most strongly in the right of the individual to pursue their own affairs free of interference so long as no harm is done to others, and those who see a role for government in regulating what is viewed as proper, moral behaviour.
Bill C-36 clearly proceeds from the latter conception. It supposes that prostitution is inherently immoral and inherently dangerous, an assertion explicitly made by Mr MacKay in this bill’s defense. It is conceived in the notion that rhetorical distinctions between the legality of purchasing and selling sex can offer some sort of shelter to people engaged in this activity while denying them the actual and enforceable protections that our country’s government and law enforcement institutions could, and should, provide. It supposes that prostitution can be eliminated and human nature altered by government decree and has no consideration for the likely harms that its prohibitions will inflict.
The government of this country possesses an awesome power, through the creation and enforcement of laws, and its monopoly upon the use of force for its own preservation. Being inherently mistrustful of such power and its potential for misuse, it seems self-evident that the government of Canada must always exercise such power in the most limited and judicious of fashions, in all cases concerning itself primarily with the impact of that exercise of power upon those most vulnerable to it.
It is clear, and has always been clear, that prostitution, however undesirable, will never cease to be practiced so long as humans persist upon the Earth, and so long as it is practiced, it is prostitutes themselves who are its most vulnerable participants. Any harm visited upon the industry of prostitution will be first and most direly felt by prostitutes themselves. Given this fact, it is imperative that the government consider, before all else, how to ensure that practitioners of prostitution are able to avail themselves most completely of the protection of the law and of the state. Any legal impediment to their ability to do this will inevitably result in the visitation of great harm upon some of the most vulnerable members of our society.
The name of this law clearly demonstrates the false understanding of cause and effect regarding the risks and consequences of prostitution. Prostitution is not inherently dangerous. It is presently dangerous because the government has vilified and criminalized it, and because the law forces it to be practiced in a dangerous fashion. Those who engage in prostitution are drawn to the practice from the most vulnerable segments of society, usually against their will, as a direct consequence of its illegality and the impediments created by the law against its safe, open and regulated practice. This is not an inherent characteristic of the act of prostitution, but an artifice created by the state through its enactment of prohibitionary laws.
Making prostitution illegal will not stop prostitution from happening, but it will force prostitutes to expose themselves to harm, and it will result in the deaths of innocent people. It is unconscionable that the government of this country would propose and seek to pass a law which will result, as a clear and obvious consequence, in the predictable victimization of its citizens. Moreover, the Supreme Court decision which resulted in the drafting of Bill C-36 makes it abundantly clear that such a consequence makes this law unconstitutional and unable to withstand an inevitable legal challenge.
It is incomprehensible to me that the government could expect this bill to be morally acceptable to the people of Canada, or considered lawful and compatible with the Constitution and the judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada, should it be passed.
I urge you in the strongest possible terms to reconsider this bill.
Should this bill be passed into law, I will be morally unable to support the Conservative Party of Canada in the next federal election.
Yours sincerely, etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment