By Carly Romano

“When you buy meat, you believe it to have been inspected and approved. If you sell your body, I think you should have to do the same.”

-Alan Young, Canadian Lawyer Magazine

bad-law-canadian-lawyer-magazine-2[2]

I doubt the reach of Canadian Lawyer Magazine is very broad, but I wanted to bring everyone’s attention to a very biased and unempirical article featured on the front page of the May 2014’s issue, entitled “Bad Law”. In it, Canadian Lawyer Magazine glorifies Alan Young (the lawyer who fought for the pimping and sex buying laws to be struck down) and villainizes all who oppose him. I was shocked at the blatant low blows and petty attacks towards abolitionists so casually delivered. After being characterized as a “feminist zealot”, I felt compelled to respond.

Firstly, the idea of likening human beings to meat is telling in and of itself. People are not things to be bought or sold. It is unfortunate that a gifted mind such as Young’s has become so twisted that he can no longer see the difference between the rights of conscious, living people and those of a dead animal carcass.

Secondly, the argument that a decriminalized system which provides health inspections for prostitutes increases their safety, is getting tired. Health inspections for prostitutes only benefit sex buyers, not sex sellers. If the sex buyer carries a disease, then the sex seller will be infected no matter the frequency of their health inspections. How can you claim that a decriminalized system would provide better health conditions for sex sellers through health inspections? The logic doesn’t follow. It’s a system that the wealthy, invisible sex buyers (possible target market for the magazine?) want instituted to protect themselves. That they mask this under the claim that it’s all in the interest of prostitutes’ rights is deceptive and manipulative.

“There are a lot of bad jobs that people do out of desperation and I don’t think selling sex is necessarily the worst one.”

-Alan Young, Canadian Lawyer Magazine

Is he possibly referring to a job flipping burgers at McDonalds? To that, I quote “feminist zealot” Janice Raymond: “At least in McDonald’s, you’re not the meat.” – Red Light Green Light. She goes on to describe how comparing prostitution to a minimum wage job implies that prostitution is a choice made with all options presented, but the facts do not support this idea.

“I happen to think that people should be allowed to make their own heaven and hell.”

-Alan Young, Canadian Lawyer Magazine

This implies that prostitutes fully chose prostitution with all of the options presented to them and therefore deserve their fate. Do homeless people make a conscious choice to choose hell? Our society would argue the opposite. That is why we provide these people with thousands of dollars in social aid to assist them in exiting their bad situation, a situation we know is likely due to a traumatic childhood or mental illness. Why is it that a person who is homeless, has a drug problem and sells sex to get the drugs is seen as choosing their own hell, while a homeless person with a drug problem is considered a person who didn’t have a lot of options?

Stay tuned for Part 2 where I expand on how Canadian Lawyer Magazine dismissed all evidence contrary to Young.