New prostitution laws may be on the way thanks to last month’s decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, but much will now depend on the sexual orientation of the prime minister – namely, his orientation on whether or not to restrict what consenting adults do in private.
The PM and his former justice minister, Rob Nicholson, insisted the laws were constitutional. Now 15 judges, including those in the lower courts, have put to rest the government’s feckless handling of the file and unanimously declared prostitution laws null and void.
Not that we need laws, but the PM has a year to come up with new ones. Since Stephen Harper has a majority and runs a tight ship, he’s the one on the spot. That means he’ll tell you – yes, you – what you can and cannot do in private and what happens if you break whatever new laws he brings in.
I have six questions for him to consider.
Is it a sex act when a man gets an erection and inserts his penis into a woman or another man? Is orgasm an issue here? Is it a sex act if a registered masseuse massages a naked man, without touching his genitals, and he has an erection? What if the masseuse is not registered? Say it’s me. Is it a sex act if I give a naked man a massage while he is fully restrained and I don’t touch his genitals? What if another man is watching and masturbating while watching all this?
I could go on. I think you get the idea.
Is a woman a prostitute or sex worker if she has sexual intercourse with a man in gratitude for a favour, such as home repairs? What if she just gets a promissory note in return for sex? What if a man pays his wife or girlfriend for sex? What if he pays her to hold his hand or to let him masturbate in front of her while she verbally humiliates him by calling him a lackey of the prime minister?
Is it a bawdy house if a woman, almost daily, stays home and has sexual intercourse for money or some other form of payment? What if a man pays to just look at her as she washes dishes? Is it a bawdy house when in this home or place of business there is no genital touching? What if all customers are fully clothed?
Is it a bawdy house if the woman sets up a dungeon with bondage and discipline equipment and rents the room to others who are not involved in any financial transaction – such as married couples?
Under the old laws, indecency was loosely defined as something that violated community standards. Can the prime minister be more specific?
The courts struck down the old laws partially because they were too vague. So it is important for the PM to be clear. I look forward to his lists and explanations.
As a dominatrix, I enjoy controlling and punishing men. As a dominatrix, I have never been charged with assault or unlawful confinement, despite significant acts of restraining, whipping, spanking, tickling and pinching of clients. Is paying to get whipped by me, where no injury results, more violent or more abhorrent than being blindsided by a 300-pound lineman whose job it is to play football?
If I put one of the PM’s lackeys into chains and tickle him until he cries, is it as violent as one of those wrestling or mixed martial arts shows that are so popular?
Here’s what I think a conservative stands for: he believes government should respect the privacy of citizens he respects the rights of consenting citizens to privacy in the bedroom or dungeon he believes these freedoms should extend to all segments of society and he believes government should refrain from imposing arbitrary moral judgments on citizens.
I think people should be free to decide about prostitution for themselves. I also know that prostitution is going on all over the place under Harper’s government, and that women – get ready for this – are actually often asking criminals to protect them from the authorities under the laws the prime minister has fought to retain.
The PM’s handling of this issue to date has been a blow against safety for women and in favour of organized crime. Going forward, he really must define his sexual orientation if he is serious about doing his job.
news@nowtoronto.com
