For most of my life, I have loved to write...hence this blog. And I have always wanted to write a book. I have started many books and even had some interest from a publisher once on a non-fiction book but ife got in the way so that never worked out. I have lots of ideas for fiction books to but as of late, I have been thinking a lot about writing a book about the failed potential of the Harper Government to really deliver for victims of crime.
They started out well - a new CSC victim service unit, the Ombudsman's office (not to mention appointing a really handsome and truly gifted young man whose name escapes me right now), expanded the fund for victims attending parole hearings and creating the emergency fund for Canadians victimized abroad (a recommendation from the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime I might add). They passed some decent criminal justice legislation too - raised the age of consent, drug impaired driving, some (minor) improvements to the Dangerous Offender legislation and enhanced the DNA databank.
But from then on, victim issues somehow morphed into tougher sentences for people who steal cars, people who do drugs, people who jaywalk - it is not all about tougher sentencing. And with the exception of a small $1 million a year for 5 year bump for Child Advocacy Centres, there has been no increase in spending on victims since 2007.
There has probably never been a government that talks more about victims but does less. The Liberals never pretended to be the party of crime victims although they actually did some really important stuff like create the DNA Databank, create the victims fund and the policy centre for victim issues, make victim impact statements mandatory, put victims into the sentencing principles, let victims speak at parole hearings, etc. I would even go so far as to say that the Liberal record on victims is better than that than the Tories.
The Tories, right or wrong, are seen as the party of crime victims right now and I think it is based on lies. That doesn't mean that everything they had done is bad but they say everything they do (justice wise) is for victims but no one can show me how most of these measures make a difference in the lives of victims I work with.
I think I have enough information to show that not only will most of the government's crime agenda not help most victims but may actually end up hurting those that go through the criminal justice system. I also want to show that the Tories are not the party of victims as they pretend to be and that the Liberals did some incredibly important things. IN fact, some of what the Tories have done is simply build on these things and re-introduce legislation the Liberals first introduced. And I have an idea or two about what actually needs to be done (and yes, there will be a chapter on CACs).
I have several friends who have written books and I know it is a lot of work...and they all had the advantage of actually being great writers. But it's time to put finally get serious about this little dream of mine.
I wonder if the minister will agree to an interview - why bother? I can save some time and just have him fax me his speaking notes because if it ain't written down, this guy ain't going to say it.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
The prostitution dilemna
In one of my victimology course, I posted a question about the recent court decision over the prostitution laws. As most of you know, prostitution itself is not illegal in Canada but laws surrounding prostitution are - solicitation, living off the avails and keeping a bawdy house. In Ontario, those three laws were struck down because the court found that the laws themselves put sex trade workers at risk. Everyone accepts that there is a certain risk involved in this kind of work, but the court heard evidence that the law makes it more dangerous for some workers (mainly those working the street, who are the most vulnerable).
There are no shortages of opinions. Some right wing commentators argue about the immorality of selling sex and how it must be kept illegal although they fail to address the escort ads in the back pages of their newspapers. Here is a tip guys - those women don't really just "escort" clients. Most of them are sex trade workers and actually, most sex trade work is done via these ads, the Internet, etc. and what we see on the streets is only a small part of the sex trade. And reseach suggests those who work "inside" are safer than those who work on the streets.
But its the part we see and therefore the part that is enforced by the police. The escort services, by and large, are left alone. Hypocritical of society, police and politicians you say? I think so - if the selling of sex, or the activities surrounding it, are so bad that workers must be criminalized, why do we only enforce those laws against the most vulnerable of those workers? Those who are selling themselves for enough money to feed their drug habit, for example.
There are also the contrasting feminist points of view (as I understand them and I am by no means an expert) - one side saying prostitution exploits all women and the other side saying that feminism means choices for women and if a woman chooses this profession, more power to her. I have to admit, I find that argument tough to counter. Granted, I don't think most women (or men) involved in the sex trade make that choice - many get involved at a young age running away from an abusive home and are manipulated or exploited into the trade and then they get trapped. Those are the no brainer cases.
But what about a woman (and since we are talking about feminism, I am going to stick to females workers) who makes an informed choice and decides being a sex trade worker works for her? Maybe it gives her flexibility in her hours. Maybe it pays better than a "legitimate" job she could get or has. Whatever the reason, if an adult woman makes a conscious decision to do this, should she be criminalized?
Maybe she doesn't have as many options as you and I and she decides this one is going to feed and clothes her kids better than the others. We can pretend she should not have to make this choice, and maybe she shouldn't, but that may be her reality. She can't put food on the table with what should be - she has to deal with what is.
One of the women who brought the case forward has acknowledged publicly that she was abused as a child. I heard a friend of mine, who is a strong advocate for victims, use her as an example to suggest that she never made a choice because she was abused as a child. She was a victim.
I struggle with this one. I don't know the woman's story so there may be more to it, but is it not possible that she was abused as a child...but as an adult still chose to be a sex trade worker? I mean, does the fact that she was once a victim mean she can never make a decision that the rest of us may not agree with? Working in the victims' field means supporting people and giving them information, not making decisions for them. Abused women return to abusers everyday and their support workers may hate that they are making that decision but they support her anyway.
Who are we to tell this woman that she cannot possibly make a choice to be a sex trade worker because she was victimized as a child? Did that experience impact her life? Ya. Has it played a part in her decision? Probably. But does that mean she does not have the right or the capacity to make the decision for herself? I hope not.
Of course if you express any concern with the current law, which is selectively applied and usually targets workers as opposed to johns, then you must support legalizing it and regulating it. I am not convinced this is the right way either because the most vulnerable workers (addict, HIV positive, etc.) will not be permitted to work in these places and will be pushed into even more dangerous situations.
I actually don't have the answer. Sweden has an interesting model that a lot of people say is working although there is a smaller group that say it is not working as well as everyone says. In Sweden, they criminalize the john but not the worker. Critics say it has driven women into darker places because men have to be more careful that they do not get caught. But it is a model worth looking at.
My view is this - the current law is not working. We need to rethink it and if we had a government that was not so limited in its thinking (I keep waiting for the minister to announce mandatory minimum penalties as a solution to the entire problem), they might see this as an opportunity to rethink our approach - one that recognizes that many, if not most, workers want to get out of the trade, that some may choose to do this work and should not be penalized and targets predatory pimps.
I should add there is no debate about children - it has and must remain a crime. It is child abuse and men who rape children and think its okay because they pay them are skumbags. It would be nice if the government spent some money on building shelters for these kids, including males, to get off the streets. That $77 million that Peter MacKay is spending on a new cafeteria would be a good start and I remember a time when Peter would have agreed with me.
The problem with this debate, as it is with so many, is that the sides are polarized - leave the law the way it is, do nothing or legalize/regulate it. There really hasn't been any public debate and I am not sure such a thing is possible anymore but the Committee on the Status of Women did some good work on this and their report might actually be a good starting point.
But with 4 more years of Stephen Harper, don't hold your breath waiting for a creative or imaginative approach to a complex problem. It's not his strong suit. Maybe we should build some more prisons and lock all the workers up. It solves every other problem, right Minister Nicholson? Why not this one?
There are no shortages of opinions. Some right wing commentators argue about the immorality of selling sex and how it must be kept illegal although they fail to address the escort ads in the back pages of their newspapers. Here is a tip guys - those women don't really just "escort" clients. Most of them are sex trade workers and actually, most sex trade work is done via these ads, the Internet, etc. and what we see on the streets is only a small part of the sex trade. And reseach suggests those who work "inside" are safer than those who work on the streets.
But its the part we see and therefore the part that is enforced by the police. The escort services, by and large, are left alone. Hypocritical of society, police and politicians you say? I think so - if the selling of sex, or the activities surrounding it, are so bad that workers must be criminalized, why do we only enforce those laws against the most vulnerable of those workers? Those who are selling themselves for enough money to feed their drug habit, for example.
There are also the contrasting feminist points of view (as I understand them and I am by no means an expert) - one side saying prostitution exploits all women and the other side saying that feminism means choices for women and if a woman chooses this profession, more power to her. I have to admit, I find that argument tough to counter. Granted, I don't think most women (or men) involved in the sex trade make that choice - many get involved at a young age running away from an abusive home and are manipulated or exploited into the trade and then they get trapped. Those are the no brainer cases.
But what about a woman (and since we are talking about feminism, I am going to stick to females workers) who makes an informed choice and decides being a sex trade worker works for her? Maybe it gives her flexibility in her hours. Maybe it pays better than a "legitimate" job she could get or has. Whatever the reason, if an adult woman makes a conscious decision to do this, should she be criminalized?
Maybe she doesn't have as many options as you and I and she decides this one is going to feed and clothes her kids better than the others. We can pretend she should not have to make this choice, and maybe she shouldn't, but that may be her reality. She can't put food on the table with what should be - she has to deal with what is.
One of the women who brought the case forward has acknowledged publicly that she was abused as a child. I heard a friend of mine, who is a strong advocate for victims, use her as an example to suggest that she never made a choice because she was abused as a child. She was a victim.
I struggle with this one. I don't know the woman's story so there may be more to it, but is it not possible that she was abused as a child...but as an adult still chose to be a sex trade worker? I mean, does the fact that she was once a victim mean she can never make a decision that the rest of us may not agree with? Working in the victims' field means supporting people and giving them information, not making decisions for them. Abused women return to abusers everyday and their support workers may hate that they are making that decision but they support her anyway.
Who are we to tell this woman that she cannot possibly make a choice to be a sex trade worker because she was victimized as a child? Did that experience impact her life? Ya. Has it played a part in her decision? Probably. But does that mean she does not have the right or the capacity to make the decision for herself? I hope not.
Of course if you express any concern with the current law, which is selectively applied and usually targets workers as opposed to johns, then you must support legalizing it and regulating it. I am not convinced this is the right way either because the most vulnerable workers (addict, HIV positive, etc.) will not be permitted to work in these places and will be pushed into even more dangerous situations.
I actually don't have the answer. Sweden has an interesting model that a lot of people say is working although there is a smaller group that say it is not working as well as everyone says. In Sweden, they criminalize the john but not the worker. Critics say it has driven women into darker places because men have to be more careful that they do not get caught. But it is a model worth looking at.
My view is this - the current law is not working. We need to rethink it and if we had a government that was not so limited in its thinking (I keep waiting for the minister to announce mandatory minimum penalties as a solution to the entire problem), they might see this as an opportunity to rethink our approach - one that recognizes that many, if not most, workers want to get out of the trade, that some may choose to do this work and should not be penalized and targets predatory pimps.
I should add there is no debate about children - it has and must remain a crime. It is child abuse and men who rape children and think its okay because they pay them are skumbags. It would be nice if the government spent some money on building shelters for these kids, including males, to get off the streets. That $77 million that Peter MacKay is spending on a new cafeteria would be a good start and I remember a time when Peter would have agreed with me.
The problem with this debate, as it is with so many, is that the sides are polarized - leave the law the way it is, do nothing or legalize/regulate it. There really hasn't been any public debate and I am not sure such a thing is possible anymore but the Committee on the Status of Women did some good work on this and their report might actually be a good starting point.
But with 4 more years of Stephen Harper, don't hold your breath waiting for a creative or imaginative approach to a complex problem. It's not his strong suit. Maybe we should build some more prisons and lock all the workers up. It solves every other problem, right Minister Nicholson? Why not this one?
Friday, August 12, 2011
Setting priorities
Ottawa Victim Services recently submitted a brief to the Finance Committee as part of its 2012 pre-budget consultations. They do this every year to get ideas for the budget. I remember testifying years ago and asking for a dedicated victim service unit at CSC and now there is one. It took a while but good things come to those who wait, right?
There will be lots of experts making recommendations about taxes and infrastructure and incentives for businesses but one economic policy that seems to escape too many people is dealing with violence against women and children. I won`t get into how important I think Child Advocacy Centres are - you can read past posts - except to say that they are economically sound. Child abuse costs us billions every year and CACs can help reduce those costs - of the justice system, the health care system, the personal costs to victims, etc.
The other priority should be providing safe and affordable housing to women trying to escape abusive relationships. I have, in recent months, learned more about the barriers to women trying to escape abuse - the shortages of affordable housing, poverty, the lack of legal aid, etc.
Forcing women (many with kids) to choose between living in hotels or shelters (if there is space) or on the streets (or a combination of all three) and staying with an abuser is no choice at all. It is wrong from a moral stand point but also an economic one. If she is living in fear or on the streets, odds are she will not be contributing to the economy or paying taxes.
It will require significant investments but let`s not pretend that it does not cost us anything now if she (and her kids) stay in that home. The cost of violence against women is in the billions of dollars annually. We pay one way or another although not as much as she pays. And if there are children, we may be paying for a long time to come.
There was an article in the TO Star this week about legal aid - even the American lawyers are looking at Canada and shaking their heads. It is almost impossible to get legal aid and in Ontario, 75% of legal aid costs are criminal so getting help with family law is even harder.
Why do we maintain these barriers to women and their children to live violence free? Status quo is easier than change and politicians see little political advantage and get little credit for long term strategies. Right wing commentators often talk about choices - some of these women don't have any good ones.
It's never a good time to go and ask the government to spend lots of money (unless you happen to be a company that builds prisons), but we cannot keep doing the same thing. This won't be the first call for a national housing strategy and it won't be the last. But it is our money and the government should spend it, or at least some of it, the way we want them to (which does not include more gazebos and outhouses in Tony Clement's riding). This should be a priority for anyone concerned about victims women and the economy.
There will be lots of experts making recommendations about taxes and infrastructure and incentives for businesses but one economic policy that seems to escape too many people is dealing with violence against women and children. I won`t get into how important I think Child Advocacy Centres are - you can read past posts - except to say that they are economically sound. Child abuse costs us billions every year and CACs can help reduce those costs - of the justice system, the health care system, the personal costs to victims, etc.
The other priority should be providing safe and affordable housing to women trying to escape abusive relationships. I have, in recent months, learned more about the barriers to women trying to escape abuse - the shortages of affordable housing, poverty, the lack of legal aid, etc.
Forcing women (many with kids) to choose between living in hotels or shelters (if there is space) or on the streets (or a combination of all three) and staying with an abuser is no choice at all. It is wrong from a moral stand point but also an economic one. If she is living in fear or on the streets, odds are she will not be contributing to the economy or paying taxes.
It will require significant investments but let`s not pretend that it does not cost us anything now if she (and her kids) stay in that home. The cost of violence against women is in the billions of dollars annually. We pay one way or another although not as much as she pays. And if there are children, we may be paying for a long time to come.
There was an article in the TO Star this week about legal aid - even the American lawyers are looking at Canada and shaking their heads. It is almost impossible to get legal aid and in Ontario, 75% of legal aid costs are criminal so getting help with family law is even harder.
Why do we maintain these barriers to women and their children to live violence free? Status quo is easier than change and politicians see little political advantage and get little credit for long term strategies. Right wing commentators often talk about choices - some of these women don't have any good ones.
It's never a good time to go and ask the government to spend lots of money (unless you happen to be a company that builds prisons), but we cannot keep doing the same thing. This won't be the first call for a national housing strategy and it won't be the last. But it is our money and the government should spend it, or at least some of it, the way we want them to (which does not include more gazebos and outhouses in Tony Clement's riding). This should be a priority for anyone concerned about victims women and the economy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)