2-year-old Gracie Melvin angered Liberals with her appearance at a Conservative rally in Harbour Grace, N.L. on Thursday. While Stephen Harper was giving a speech, she walked across the stage with a sign that said “Harper”.

Senior Liberal strategist Tom Dumont has accused the two year old of misconstruing Dion’s Green Shift plan. “Clearly, Gracie is perpetuating these untruths to the public without a full understanding of the historical and comparative evidence in regards to a carbon tax”.

Dumont says Gracie should resign, and that if she does not, Stephen Harper should ask her to step down. When asked by reporters yesterday whether Gracie should resign, Harper stated this was a case of “gotcha journalism”.

Liberal pundits say Harper is obscuring the facts. Liberal blogger Yannick Grenkovich believes Gracie’s action are “the beginning of a shift to low-blow attacks and smokescreen tactics” by the Conservative Party.

Conservative candidate for Harbour Grace, Martin O’Neill, defended Gracie, saying “Her criticism of the corporate aspect of the tax is fundamentally sound”.

The Green Shift plan, which Dion has called “the foundation of the Liberal platform” has been a difficult sell, especially in Eastern Canada.

Gracie has defended her actions, telling reporters in St. John’s yesterday that “det doon. Aiee jejo, mama. No no no.”

Stephane Dion has responded sharply, saying “Wearil seayrosl, da chel on fredolay dreder deuh wahn”.

Bibliography

“About Us”. Canadian Tire Homepage. Available: http://careers.canadiantire.ca/english/about/index.html Accessed 20/07/2007.

Amernic, Joel; Craig, Russel. CEO-Speak. Montreal, Kingston: McGill – Queens University Press, 2006.

Banker, Steve. “The Ethics of Political Marketing Practices: The Rhetorical Perspective”. Journal of Business Ethics. 11:11. Nov 1992. 843-849.

Barrett, Deborah. “A Best Practice Approach to Designing a Change Communication Programme”. Handbook of Corporate Communication and Public Relations: Pure and Applied. Oliver, Sandra M (Ed.). London, New York: Routledge, 2004.

Beer, Michael; Eisenstat, Russel A; Spector, Bert A. “Why Change Programs Don’t Produce Change”. Harvard Business Review. 68:6. Nov- Dec 1990. 158-166.

Bolton, W.F. The Language of 1984: Orwell’s English and Ours. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1984.

Brooks, Joel E. “Democratic Frustration in the Anglo-American Polities: A Quantification of Inconsistency Between Mass Public Opinion and Public Policy”. The Western Political Quarterly. 38:2. Jun 1985. 250-261.

Canadian Party Platforms: 1867–1968. Compiled by D. Owen Carrigan. Toronto: Copp Clark, 1968.

“Careers”. Gap Inc. 2007. Available: http://www.gapinc.com/public/Careers/careers.shtml Accessed 20/07/2007.

“Careers”. McDonald’s Canada. 2006. Available: http://www.mcdonalds.ca/en/careers/index.aspx Accessed 20/07/2007.

Chilton, Paul. Orwellian Language and the Media. London: Pluto Press, 1988.

Chomsky, Noam. Language and Politics. Otero, C.P. (Ed.). Oakland, USA; Edinburgh, Scotland: AK Press, 2004.

Chomsky, Noam. Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies. Montreal, Toronto, New York, London: CBC Enterprises – CBC Massey Lectures, 1989.

Connolly, William E. The Terms of Political Discourse (3rd edition). Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1993.

Crozier, Michael. “Recursive Governance: Contemporary Political Communication and Public Policy”. Political Communication. 24:1. 2007. 1-18.

Edelman, Murray. “Political Language and Political Reality”. PS. 18:1. Winter, 1985. 10-19.

Fox, Renata; Fox, John. Organizational Discourse: A Language-Ideology-Power Perspective. Westport, London: Praeger, 2004.

Geis, Michael L. The Language of Politics. New York; Berlin; Heidelberg; London; Paris; Tokyo: Springer-Verlag, 1987.

Hackman, Richard J; Wageman, Ruth. “Total Quality Management: Empirical, Conceptual, and Practical Issues”. Administrative Science Quarterly. 40:2. Jun 1995. 309-342.

Heath, Robert L. Management of Corporate Communication: From Interpersonal Contacts to External Affairs. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1994

Heidegger, Martin. On the Way to Language. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, Inc., 1971.

Innis, Harold A. The Bias of Communication. Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
1951.

Isaacs, William. Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together: A Pioneering Approach to Communicating in Business and in Life. Toronto: Currency, 1999.

Ives, Peter. Language and Hegemony in Gramsci. Winnipeg: Fernwood Publishing, 2004.

Johnson-Cartee, Karen S; Copeland, Gary A. Strategic Political Communication: Rethinking Social Influence, Persuasion, and Propaganda. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc., 2004.

Kamoche, Ken. “Rhetoric, Ritualism, and Totemism in Human Resource Management”. Human Relations. 48:4. Apr 1995. 367-385.

Lilleker, Darren G; Negrine, Ralph. “Mapping a Market Orientation: Can We Detect Political Marketing Only Through the Lens of Hindsight?” Winning Elections With Political Marketing. Davies, Phillip John; Newman, Bruce I. (Eds.). New York, London, Oxford: The Haworth Press, 2006.

Lilleker, Darren G; Lees-Marshment, Jennifer. “Conclusion: Towards a Comparative Model of Party Marketing”. Political Marketing: A Comparative Perspective. Lees- Marshment, Jennifer; Lilleker, Darren G. (Eds.) Manchester, New York: Manchester University Press, 2005.

Lees-Marshment, Jennifer. “The Marriage of Politics and Marketing”. Political Studies. 49:4. Sept 2001. 692-713.

Lutz, William. Doublespeak: From “Revenue Enhancement” to “Terminal Living” – How Business, Advertisers and Others Use Language to Deceive You. New York: Harper and Row, 1981.

Marcuse, Herbert. One Dimensional Man. USA: Beacon Press, 1964.

Marland, Alex. “Canadian Political Parties: Market-Oriented or Ideological Slagbrains?” Political Marketing: A Comparative Perspective. Lees-Marshment, Jennifer; Lilleker, Darren G. (Eds.) Manchester, New York: Manchester University Press, 2005.

“Martin will reject missile defence: Report”. CBC News. Feb 23 2005. Accessed 02/07/2007. Available:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/02/22/mckenna-missile050222.html

McCord, Elizabeth A. “The Business Writer, the Law, and Routine Business Communication: A Legal and Rhetorical Analysis”. Journal of Business and Technical Communication. 5:2. Apr 1991. 173-199.

Miller, Stephen. Conversation: A History of a Declining Art. New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 2006.

Orwell, George. 1984 Nineteen Eighty-Four. London: Penguin, 2006 (1949).

Orwell, George.“Politics and the English Language”. The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell, Volume 4: In Front of Your Nose, 1945-1950. Orwell, Sonia; Angus, Ian (Eds.). Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1980.

O’Shaughnessy, Nicholas J. “The Marketing of Political Marketing”. The Idea of Political Marketing. O’Shaughnessy, Nicholas J; Henneberg, Stephen C.M. (Ed.) Westport, London: Praeger, 2002.

Palmer, Jerry. “Smoke and Mirrors: Is That the Way it is? Themes in Political Marketing”. Media, Culture, and Society. 24:3. 2002. 345-363.

Pattinson, Georgina. “Tingo, Nakkele, and other wonders”. BBC News. 26 Sept 2005. Available: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4248494.stm Accessed 26/02/2007.

“People Promise and Principles”. McDonald’s Canada. 2006. Available: http://www.mcdonalds.ca/en/careers/people.aspx Accessed 20/07/2007.

Poole, Steven. Unspeak: How Words Become Weapons, How Weapons Become a Message, and How That Message Becomes Reality. New York: Grove Press, 2006.

Qualter, Terence H. Advertising and Democracy in the Mass Age. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, London: MacMillan, 1991.

Qualter, Terence H. Opinion Control in the Democracies. London, Basingstoke: MacMIllan, 1985.

Rapert, Molly Inhofe; Veliquette, Anne; Garretson, Judith A. “The Strategic Implementation Process: Evoking Strategic Consensus Through Communication”. Journal of Business Research. 55:4. Apr 2002. 301-310.

Robinson, Piers; Brown, Robin; Goddard, Peter; Parry Katy. “War and Media”. Media, Culture and Society. 27:6. 2005. 951-959.

Saul, John Ralston. The Unconscious Civilization. Concord, ON: House of Anansi Press Ltd, 1995.

Scammell, Margaret. “Political Marketing: Lessons for Political Science”. Political Studies. 47:4. Sept 1999. 718-739.

Schiller, Herbert I. Culture Inc: The Corporate Takeover of Public Expression. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.

Smith, Gareth; Hirst, Andy. “Strategic Political Segmentation: A New Approach for a New Era in Political Marketing”. European Journal of Marketing. 35:9/10. 2001. 1058-1073.

Sparrow, Nick; Turner, John. “The Permanent Campaign: The Integration of Market Research Techniques in Developing Strategies in a More Uncertain Political Climate”. European Journal of Marketing. 35:9/10. 2001. 984-1002.

Taylor, Charles. Philosophical Arguments. Cambridge; London: Harvard University Press, 1995.

Walkom, Thomas. “Armed U.S. Agents a Blow to Sovereignty”. The Toronto Star (Online). Jun 28 2007. Available: http://www.thestar.com/article/230287 Accessed 02/07/2007.

Watson, Don. Death Sentences: How Cliches, Weasel Words, and Management-Speak are Strangling Public Language. Toronto: Viking Canada, 2003.

White, Edward M. “The Dangers of Singlespeak”. Beyond 1984: Doublespeak in a Post-Orwellian Age. Lutz, William (Ed.). Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English, 1989.

Woolever, Kristin R. “Corporate Language and the Law: Avoiding Liability in Corporate Communications”. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication. 35:2. Jun 1990. 94-98.

Worcester, Robert M; Baines, Paul R. “Voter Research and Market Positioning: Triangulation and its Implications for Policy Development”. Winning Elections With Political Marketing. Davies, Phillip John; Newman, Bruce I. (Eds.). New York, London, Oxford: The Haworth Press, 2006.

Yankelovich, Daniel. The Magic of Dialogue: Transforming Conflict into Co-operation. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1999.

Zbaracki, Mark J. “The Rhetoric and Reality of Total Quality Management”. Administrative Science Quarterly. 43:3. Sept 1998. 602-636.

Web Pages With Policy Documents and Party Platforms

“A Role of Pride and Influence in the World: Defence”. Canada’s International Policy Statement. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2005. Available: http://www.dnd.ca/site/reports/dps/pdf/dps_e.pdf Accessed 26/02/2007.

“Communications Policy of the Government of Canada”. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. Last modified Aug 11 2006. Available: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/sipubs/comm/comm-PR_e.asp?printable=True Accessed 04/07/2007

“Exemption Regulations (Persons)” Canada Gazette. 141: 25. Jun 23 2007. Available: http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partI/2007/20070623/html/regle2-e.html Accessed 22/07/2007.

First Minister’s Meeting on the Future of Health Care 2004: A 10-year plan to strengthen health care. Sept 16 2004. Available: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/delivery-prestation/fptcollab/2004-fmm-rpm/index_e.html Accessed 04/07/2007.

“Government Security Policy”. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. Feb 1 2002. Available: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/gospubs/tbm_12a/gsp-psg-PR_e.asp?printable=True Accessed 04/07/2007

“Securing Canada’s Success”. Liberal Party of Canada. 2005. Available: http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/leadersparties/pdf/liberal_platform_e.pdf
Accessed 01/07/2007.

“Space Security”. Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. Last modified March 31 2006. Available: http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/foreign_policy/arms_clf1/space-security-en.asp Accessed 20/07/2007

“Speaking Notes for The Honourable Gordon J. O’Connor, Minister of National Defence, For the January Cross-Country Tour” Edmonton, Alberta. Jan 20 2007. Available: http://www.dnd.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2181 Accessed 03/07/2007.

White Paper on Defence. Hellyer, Paul; Cardin; Lucien. Mar 1964. Available: http://www.forces.gc.ca/admpol/downloads/White%20Paper%20on%20Defence%20-%20March%201964.pdf Accessed 19/07/2007.

Chapter 7: Conclusion

Therefore, political marketing has pushed the language of our politicians towards an evolved type of doublespeak known as salespeak, which is essentially the way our governments and parties speak to us when the only thing that matters is getting elected or re-elected.

To show that salespeak is something we should be concerned about, and also something we can fight against, I showed how language can be seen as a fundamentally political act. Next, I argued that political marketing is actually a type of social control embedded in communication, and that the techniques and methods of this type of communication were copied from the corporate world for specific purposes. Lastly, I tried to refine the concept of salespeak to show how it can be useful, and then attempted to apply the concept to a few of Canada’s current policies and party platforms. The result, I hope, is a concept that helps us make better sense of what our politicians are telling us, or helps us ask the right questions when they have something to hide.

Not too long ago there was some controversy about Canada having agreed to participate in a joint U.S.-Canada continental ballistic defence system. Canadians never agreed to become a part of it, did not know much about it, and here was Frank McKenna, the former New Brunswick Premier and then ambassador to the U.S., telling reporters “we’re part of it now” . There was an uproar, with the opposition claiming Prime Minister Paul Martin was keeping this a secret.

Maybe he was keeping it a secret. Nevertheless, it might also help if we had a policy that said very clearly whether we would participate in this. At the moment, the only policy we have towards continental ballistic missile defence can be found at the website of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, in a section on “Space Security” and, if you can believe the wording, “The Sustainable Use of Outer Space”:

Our goal is secure and sustainable access to and use of space, and freedom from space-based threats.
We are not likely to achieve this goal in one giant leap. Our aim is therefore to make progress through small, practical and achievable steps which create the preconditions for space actors to consider space weapons to be of marginal utility .

The document then summarizes various multilateral agreements to which Canada adheres. What kind of policy is this? How can space be used in an unsustainable way? What is a “space actor”? Where is the part that says, “Canada considers a joint ballistic missile defence shield to be antagonistic, and will not participate”, or “the threat to Canada from ballistic missiles is not exaggerated, so we are part of a joint U.S.-Canada continental ballistic defence program”?

The point is – when something like this happens, we need to go to our governments and ask them directly about the policies, about the platforms; ask them to clarify their positions. Policies that tell us where they stand, and hence, where we stand, are vital in shaping our identity as Canadians and for building a stronger democracy that sets an example for the world.

Chapter 2: A Theory of Language – Language as a Political Act

If our governments are speaking to us in a different way, we need an idea of what language is and how it changes. And if we are concerned that a certain political language can neutralize our desire or ability to object, consent, or participate in politics at all, we need to know how language, thought, and action are related.

The theoretical approach to language taken here, and discussed in greater detail throughout this chapter, is the following: language has biological and creative components, but it is above all political. In the biological sense, it is something innate and genetic that functions and grows, like any organ, according to certain principles. In the creative sense, it is innovative in nature and fashioned and re-fashioned through conversation, allowing us to think critically and create meaning in the world - deciding for ourselves what is good and what is bad. Ultimately, however, language is a political act; that is, it is used and misused by people to achieve their goals, and it is manipulated most masterfully by those in power. Next, there can be no totalitarian language that definitively blocks some words or phrases and introduces new uncontested ones, thus killing our critical thinking or fundamentally altering thought. Nor can there be a perfectly undistorted or neutral language of truth. There is instead a constant dialogue and contest over meanings in politics. Lastly, hierarchical or corporatist power structures and technology certainly play a role, sometimes accidental and sometimes not, in designing our language and influencing how we think. By discussing each of these topics, we come to understand that there is always a way of interpreting politics that comes closest to the truth, but we must struggle for it. Seeing language this way means that when we hear or see salespeak we know that the meaning of what is being said is unclear, and we can do something to find meanings that reflect true democracy - where people are not simply made to believe they got what they wanted, but actually get what they want.

First we should discuss how language is both biological and creative, beginning with the biological part. For many, it is initially difficult to accept that we have a sort of innate capacity for language. But once one hears the argument, it is hard, and perhaps even ridiculous to deny that there must be some underlying structure, or as Noam Chomsky describes it, a “mental organ” that is the basis for how we learn language. Chomsky does away with the assumption that intellectual structures are learned, arguing instead that the structures themselves are biological and inherited, and learning or conditioning only takes place during language’s growth. This language structure is essentially an inborn cognitive rule system that allows for the creation of a number of language forms. The result is that we can only learn certain types of languages, and the languages best suited to the structure of our language organ will be the easiest to learn. To illustrate this point, Chomsky shows how children never make certain mistakes in putting together sentences. He begins with two sentences a child may have heard such as “the man is tall”, and “the man who is tall is angry”, and assures us that the child would never make the mistake of asking “is the man who is tall is angry?” . This is because we have built in knowledge telling us that some structures which we have never heard are correct, and others which we have never heard are incorrect. If it were simply a matter of learning or imitation we would never hear a child complain “he hitted me!”

It does not make a difference that people speak many languages, some of which we would certainly think are not born from the same principles as others. According to Chomsky, these languages may differ in how they realize the principles that are available, but they are basically of the same structural pattern – and they have to be, because if they were not we would never learn any of them .

The power of this argument, especially if it is expressed simply enough, is plain to see. But we must explore beyond language’s innateness and discuss its fundamentally creative and dialogical nature.

The essentially creative nature of language use is what allows us to make sense of things in our lives. We do this in conversation or dialogue with others, imagined others, and even with ourselves. Charles Taylor argues that unlike other animals, “language animals” – human beings – “can identify things as worthy of desire or aversion” and that language “is the basis for all the sense that our lives make or that anything makes” . This also means that we can interpret ourselves, and in forming and re-forming how we see ourselves, we can change as people. This points to the way that language can, through dialogue over time, give different meanings to the same thing – in essence recreating that thing. The feminist movement is well familiar with the idea that women can in one place and time be associated with the sacred and inscrutable, and in another be transformed into “sluts”, “bitches”, “hoes” and so on. Obviously women themselves were never recreated, but by associating them with these terms, patriarchal dialogue evolved and became more unassailable, impenetrable, and women’s desire to redefine themselves was suppressed. But by making and re-making sentences in our minds and with others, we are able to struggle against this, get closer to the truth, and discover ourselves, our purpose, and our goals. If language did not have the capacity to do this, and if new or different language structures were not created in dialogue, we would never know what was good or bad. In this instance, the only way I can make the case that salespeak is something worth fighting against along with inequality and exploitation, is if language is something essentially creative and dialogical in nature that gives meaning to our lives.

This is what makes language, fundamentally, a political act. If we were to finish with the idea that language is biological and creative, we would end up with the feeling that it is just floating out there, somehow making and re-making meaning on its own. But it is people who use language; that find ways to re-work and manipulate meanings. It is you or me. But most importantly, it is our politicians, and others in power, who most ably manipulate language to suit their goals. This is why language philosophies which claim “the being of anything that is resides in the word” or that “language speaks” are not particularly useful here. We are aiming to change the attitudes of certain people who use language, and if we get caught up in matters of language somehow speaking through us, we will never get anything accomplished.

To understand language as a political act, it is useful to use Gramsci’s theory of language as the result of a history of political choices based on interplay between spontaneous and normative grammars. Spontaneous grammars are those patterns we follow while speaking that are unconscious and seem natural (meaning Gramsci would reject Chomsky’s universal grammar), and normative grammars are the conscious rules we follow to speak correctly – the stuff taught to us in school or instilled by irritated parents. Gramsci believed normative grammars were created by political acts and choices from spontaneous grammars, which were the result of previous normative grammars, and so on. It is easy to see why we might need a starting point in universal grammar.

We can combine some of these ideas now. It is possible that some of the patterns we follow while speaking and writing are natural, and are the result of a universal grammar, while some only seem natural, and are the result of a history of political acts based on the mixing of spontaneous and normative grammars. If Gramsci had lived to see the development of universal grammar as a scientific theory, he may have had little trouble accepting this.

For example, In Death Sentences, Don Watson uses writing exercises to demonstrate how certain management-speak terms and weasel words begin to seem natural, or necessary, as if we could never have written without them. We can come up with the same type of writing exercise, for example:
Rewrite the following sentence (taken from a speech by Canada’s Minister of National Defence, Gordon O’Connor) without using “in terms of”:

“In terms of development, Canada is among the top five aid donors in Afghanistan, having pledged $100 million annually until 2011 to development and reconstruction projects.”

The answer does not come easily, because “in terms of” is something we have gotten used to hearing and seeing in print. Don Watson laments how “in terms of” has gone from being innocuous sentence “padding” to something that has “wiped out prepositions and participles, corrupted sentences, and made much conversation hideous” . Perhaps, but Watson does not show us how “in terms of” changes the meaning of anything. However, as we will see later, there are other terms, salespeak terms, that seem quite natural, but significantly change the meaning of what is being said.

When we talk about salespeak then, we are not talking about something that arose on its own, and can only be explained using the mystical verbiage of language philosophy. It is a choice by somebody to communicate in a way that reflects their overarching need to get elected or re-elected, and in a way that absolves them of doing the things they tell people they are going to do. It remains to be seen, however, how an abuse of language affects our thought.

Neither language nor thought has a definitive effect upon the other. Language can have an effect on thought, and vice versa, but they only inform - or in Orwell’s words, “corrupt” - each other . Because the creative aspect of language is formed from the biological aspect, neither language or thought can completely determine the other. Many have criticized Orwell for claiming that political language can determine political thought, but here he is misunderstood, probably as a result of concentration on his fictional work. Some believe Orwell’s 1984 was an attempt to show the implications of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis – “that thought is dependent on language… and since languages differ grammatically and lexically, people who speak different languages will differ in how they conceive the world” . But this is not what he believed. In his other writings; specifically Politics and the English Language, his claim is simply this: If we are lazy or insincere and the “general atmosphere is bad”, language can corrupt thought and thought can corrupt language . But by changing our habits, and confronting and undoing doublespeak and other abuses and misuses of language in public space, we can fight back. He even says “the process is reversible” , and this must be the case, or else our political masters would long ago have found an ingenious way to tell us it was not, and we would accept this as truth. The biological-creative nature of language makes an ongoing struggle possible.

There is a tendency to read Orwell as though he was a philosopher, when he should be read as a writer, or simply as somebody who cared about what was happening to the English language. When he says “what is above all needed is to let the meaning choose the word, not the other way about” , he is not advocating, as W.F. Bolton believes, a language that is as precise about its meaning as numbers . Nor is he calling for, as Chilton asserts, “a totally determinate language where each linguistic item corresponds to each though with mathematical necessity and perspicuity” . Orwell’s own words are unsurprisingly clear - he is asking us to simply use language “as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought”, and to choose – not simply accept – the phrases that will best cover the meaning .

In The Language of Politics, Michael Geis criticizes what he sees as Orwell’s view that “limiting the lexical resources of a language must limit thought” . Again, this is reading the Orwell of 1984. In Politics and the English Language, Orwell is clearly not worried that a totalitarian regime will come along and erase words from the dictionary. Instead, he worries about language’s decadence and pretentiousness, and puts his faith in the “conscious action of a minority” to defend the language . Reading Orwell’s non-fiction, we can only be sure he believed political language could have a significant, unconscious influence on political thought; that thought and language corrupt each other, but there are things we can do to make things better if we care enough to try.

The notion that thought is entirely dependent on language turns out to be quite silly. There are many things we know or feel that cannot be expressed in language. Jazz musicians have a knack for the rhythm, tempo, and teamwork that goes into improvisation, but this knowledge is not something that can be put into words. Similarly, hockey players should have a sort of instinctive sense for where the puck is going, and where their teammates are positioned on the ice, and where to pass – it is something that comes with time, but certainly not something you could explain with words. There are also things we feel that cannot be put into words. Most of us have struggled at some time in our lives to express extreme sadness, anger, or joy, but were unable to find the words that really matched how we felt.

Moreover, you cannot really show, as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis attempts to show, that speakers of different languages think in entirely different ways due to their language, and that we can escape our perceptions by speaking other languages. Most words or phrases can be translated, with a few exceptions. And in those exceptional cases, we can at least come up with a sentence or explanation to match the meaning. For example, in English we may not have the Japanese word “bakku-shan” to describe a girl who appears pretty from behind but not from the front , but chances are, if this is explained to us we will get the idea.

Similarly, although we do not have a word to describe an aunt and uncle the same way we have a word to describe our mother and father (“parents”), this does not mean we do not get the concept.

There is still a way to argue with what is being said here, but it is uncertain how much value this argument has. Some, like Herbert Marcuse, argue that the “universe of discourse” is essentially already closed or “one-dimensional”, and thus “immune from the expression of protest and refusal” . Language has stopped being useful in searching for truth and grasping reality, and has concretely established true and false, good and bad, right and wrong. Meanings are, in his gloomy assessment, “fixed, doctored, loaded” and serve merely for the recognition of an unquestionable fact . Our way of thinking then, is supposedly entirely bound by this closed universe of discourse, and we are only able to discern our situation on the terms set by our political and corporate masters. This does not mean we cannot rebel and redefine what we think is happening, only that this rebellion and redefinition is absorbed and processed as a normal part of everyday life. In other words, what I say here cannot possibly make a difference because I can only speak in the way I have been indoctrinated.

In my defence, this is something I can only be sure of if I try. And perhaps Marcuse would agree that if the struggle for a better language is taken out of academia and practised in the public sphere, then it can make a real difference. Moreover, it is possible that the very fact I have it in my mind to try, means that my thought has not been restricted to meanings created by a closed universe of discourse.

To reiterate, because the creative aspect of language is formed from the biological aspect, neither language nor thought can completely determine the other. Instead, space is created for an ongoing struggle for meaning. If this were not the case, this whole exploration would be pointless.

If the argument presented here is clear enough thus far, it may already be evident that there can be no totalitarian language that definitively blocks some words or phrases and introduces new uncontested ones, therefore killing our critical thinking or fundamentally altering thought. If there was any political desire to concretely change our way of thinking using language, it would have to deal with the way language and thought are only loosely linked, and the way these links are undone, re-done, and combined all the time in the creative world of language. Moreover, any real attempt to use language as a tool for permanently changing thought would have to radically alter the laws that give people a certain amount of freedom of speech, and this would eventually require force. It is not within the scope of this study to consider the possibility of this happening in Canada. Regardless, the mere fact that doublespeak is so frequently exposed during our prime-time satire TV viewing is evidence enough that people are quite resistant to any attempt to definitively create new meanings. For instance, it is not difficult to understand that the United States’ “Department of National Defence” has been mostly involved in making war since it was given that name, or that the terms “Department of Homeland Security” and “Department of National Defence” are comically similar, and that one of these departments must clearly be doing something other than what it claims to do.

Also, there cannot be a perfectly undistorted or neutral language of truth, where words are as specific to their meanings as numbers. According to Edward M. White, such a language might be termed “singlespeak” – a way of speaking that makes our meaning as clear as a window pane, but in doing so, reduces complex phenomena or activities to something quantifiable . He adds that “singlespeak” rejects Einstein’s qualifier that everything should be as simple as possible – but no simpler .

The idea is that there are what William E. Connolly calls “essentially contested concepts in politics” , and any attempt to find or conceive a matrix of neutral language for solving our political problems is certain to fail. Additionally, any such attempt is an effort to do away with politics altogether – an impossible task. An essentially contested concept could be a word like “terrorism”, or a phrase like “freedom of speech”. In the case of “terrorism”, for example, to one person it may be something that is mostly identified with desperate religious fanatics who hate freedom, but to another it is something most often committed by the US’s military, secret operations and intelligence apparatus. Likewise, there is often some debate about when mass killings can actually be called “genocide”. Is it when 100 people of a targeted ethnic or religious group are killed? Or 1000 people? What if a recognized government is responsible for the killings, and justifies its actions by claiming a certain group is a threat to national sovereignty? Connolly claims, in keeping with what we have said thus far, that we can argue about these conceptual discrepancies in public and come to agreements that shift meaning in a certain directions.

This is quite different from what Murray Edelman believes. In works such as Political Language and Political Reality, among others, he argues that what matters most is our interpretation of the facts of political life. Reality is really about what we suppose, assume, and construct in our minds, not about facts. For example, in the case of what constitutes “terrorism” there is no way to show that any viewpoint is more valid than the other so long as people have a material and moral reason to hold a certain opinion . History is proof, he claims, that all sorts of justifications can be made – and believed - for horrific acts that are today obviously immoral or stupid . He also discusses value inversions - for example, attacking a country to make it free, or giving police more sophisticated weaponry to reduce violence. But Edelman claims that such value inversions are not hypocritical, rather they reveal “the openness of language to accommodation to varying situations and to the range of interests of speakers and audiences” . According to Edelman, it seems we can use language to make a case for anything.

Obviously this is true, but not all arguments or rationalizations have the same value. This is the whole point of the earlier discussion about the creative aspect of language – that through dialogue it lets us distinguish, in the end, between right and wrong, truth and lies. For example, we should be able to eventually decide whether the US invasion of Iraq was justified, the same way we know we were right when we liberated European nations from Nazi rule. There will always be those who disagree, but they will likely be in the minority, and the established facts will always work against them. Even Edelman seems to acknowledge that we can look back in history and more clearly identify what was justified and what was not. Then there is no reason why today we should hear a lie, but tell ourselves, “well, that is true in a sense” simply because the liar has material and moral reasons to believe what he is saying. Those reasons could be unjust. Therefore, with good evidence, a sound argument, and some common sense, we can decide for ourselves.

There will always be a contest over meaning in politics, but the biological-creative nature of language inherently constructs a dialogue that lets us express what is right and wrong. Hence, the contest is to some extent always “won” by a particular argument, and if we are not defeatist about the prospects of improving political discourse, that particular argument is the one that reflects true democracy, where the people are told as precisely as possible what has happened, what is happening, and what will happen. This way we have a real choice.

It would be ridiculous to deny that hierarchical or corporatist power structures do not play a role, accidentally or purposely, in designing our language and influencing how we think. But most attempts to describe approximately who or what is constituted in these power structures are imprecise, and to be frank, quite useless.

Marcuse points to what may, at best, be described as the cadres of “total administration”, or as he lists them, “the defense laboratories and the executive offices, the government and the machines (?), the time-keepers and managers, the efficiency experts and the political beauty parlours” . These things (we should admit some difficulty in finding a common term to denote both machines and political beauty parlours) are the proprietors of the universe of discourse. Orwell believed that political and economic power structures were a significant force, though it is unclear specifically what this means. And in The Unconscious Civilization, John Ralston Saul does his best to implicate “corporatist structures”, which create specialist dialects in science, social science, medicine, linguistics, art, education, etc . He also acknowledges the role of government rhetoric and propaganda, but this is all too obvious. Chomsky is probably the most specific here, claiming that it is the educated classes which have acquiesced to the abuse and misuse of language – in short, to propaganda. He discounts the state propaganda apparatus and encourages us to pay attention to the power of a privatized system of propaganda, which includes the media, journals of opinion, and intelligentsia.

But this is where he may be off target. This privatized propaganda apparatus certainly does what Chomsky says it does, but only in response to how the state articulates policy. It is at this state level – the policy papers, the speeches, the laws, motions, and acts – that the process of toying with language in order to shape politics begins. It is our governments that raise or lower taxes, cut or boost funding for social programs, and send our troops to war, and it is our governments that must begin at the early stages of political marketing to articulate this policy in a way that will make us accept whatever happens. The privatized propaganda system only swallows the explanations it is given and regurgitates them back into the public with twice the force.

The most recent example of this is the British and U.S. media’s coverage of the Iraq war. Piers Robinson and his colleagues conducted a review of four studies about the media’s reporting of Iraq, and confirmed that the media was in sync with the government’s agenda and ideology in a way not seen since the Cold War. In addition, the media was found echoing key themes promoted by the “coalition”, including reiterating the official justifications for war, the threat of WMD’s, the humanitarian argument for regime change, and the broader ‘war on terror’ narrative .

The importance of hierarchical or corporatist power structures in shaping language is plain, but state policy articulation will prove to be the crucial factor for later discussions of political marketing and salespeak.

Technology has made it easier for power structures to disseminate its preferred language. In The Bias of Communication, Harold A. Innis claimed that technology is the most influential force affecting how we communicate, and that each technological medium for transmitting communication has a bias due to the way it is organized and controlled. For example, hand written and oral communication, or what Innis termed “time-biased” media, favours the traditional, religious, and moral. Radio, newspapers, and television, or what Innis termed “space-biased” media, favours the secular, the modern state, and essentially territorial empire. While such a claim is perhaps too technologically determinist for what is being proposed here, it is easy to see some truth in the general claim that technology changes how we speak.

The internet is an appropriate example. We are often told that certain websites such as Myspace and Facebook make great “social networking tools”. These websites allow users to maintain profiles, write updates on what is happening in their lives, and create lists of “friends”. First, it is strange that the word “networking” has managed to creep into our normal use of language. Networking, when it is applied to interpersonal relations, really means this: finding and keeping in touch with people in case they prove to be of some utility someday. This must be the case, since “friends” lists are so often populated with people the user has not actually seen or done anything with in a long time, if at all. A good case can be made that “friends” should be people you actually associate with; people that go to you in the real physical sense when they need somebody to trust, or that are there for you in difficult times. It is possible that such “social networking tools” are using the word “friends” when they should be using “contacts”, or some other more neutral term. Nevertheless, it is normal to hear how many “friends” one has in terms of how many people are on their “friends” list.

Similarly, instant messaging has changed the way we write to each other, albeit mostly in the area of instant messaging itself. It remains unlikely that somebody will use “g2g” in place of “I have to go now” in everyday conversation, or give a hearty “LOL!” in place of actually laughing out loud. But instant messaging language has made its way into e-mails, and there is little doubt that somebody somewhere has hand-written a letter that ended with a “ttyl!” in place of “talk to you later!” In Conversation: A History of a Declining Art, Stephen Miller even suggests that our love of “conversation avoidance mechanisms”, which includes not only instant messaging, but e-mail, mp3 players, cell phones, video games, and internet use, makes us less capable of meaningful face-to-face conversation. All we are left with is either angry exchanges that must produce a winner, or the lets-all-agree-on-everything dialogue characteristic of The Oprah Winfrey Show.

It is also possible that our tendency to say “hello” when answering the phone has made the word more strictly for telephone use and outcast it from face-to-face greeting traditions. If we think of somebody saying “hello” when they physically meet somebody, we feel the stuffiness of a tux and bow-tie, handkerchief-in-pocket, and a monocle. These examples clearly demonstrate, in a limited but understandable and relatable way, the potential that technology has to transform language. This will become especially important later, since political marketing, and hence salespeak, relies so much on new technology in discerning public opinion and getting its message to the public.

In sum, language has a biological-creative nature which, in the biological sense, is innate and grows according to certain principles, and in the creative sense, innovates, fashions, and re-fashions through dialogue, allowing us to think critically and create meaning in the world. But it is above all a political act; used by people, especially those in power, for their own purposes. There can be no totalitarian language that definitively blocks some words or phrases and introduces new uncontested ones, nor can there be a perfectly undistorted or neutral language of truth. There is instead a constant conversation and contest over meanings in politics. Moreover, hierarchical or corporatist power structures and technology certainly play a role, sometimes accidental and sometimes not, in designing our language and influencing how we think. Seeing language this way means that when we hear or see salespeak we know that the meaning of what is being said is unclear, and we can do something to find meanings that embody true democracy - where people are not simply made to believe they got what they wanted, but actually get what they want.

I am often asked, when somebody recognizes me walking down the street, “hey man, aren’t you that bald guy with the glasses from E.R?”
No, I am not.
But I was recently asked, in an e-mail from somebody who claims to be looking for answers about communism in Canada, “what is the difference between the Communist Party of Canada and the Marxist Leninist Party of Canada?”

Ah, yes. I know where this person is coming from. Disenchanted with traditional Canadian politics, sees the Liberals and Conservatives as the same, too socialist for the NDP, sees past all the bullshit and is looking for something different… But unfortunately forgets to look for something relevant.

So they turn to the two “communist” parties of Canada, looking for answers, but then the question comes: “which one do I go with?” Here’s a handy comparison chart to help you make up your mind.

Instead of voting communist, just approach your local NDP rep and tell him to grow some balls. Boom, there you have it. A perfect socialist without a scary name.

The Situation in Canada

Prostitution itself - that is, having sex for money - is not illegal in Canada. However, many activities surrounding prostitution are illegal, and these include:
1) Brothel activities: owning or managing a brothel, working or being found in a brothel, and taking or offering to take somebody to a brothel.
2) Pimping, trafficking people into prostitution, and living off the avails of prostitution.
3) Soliciting or communicating in a public place for the purposes of prostitution.
This may seem strange – like allowing hairstyling and hairstylists, but disallowing salons, the owning and operating of salons, driving a hairstylist to work, and making appointments with your barber. But the laws were designed with gender neutrality in mind; to ensure that it was not only women being punished for prostitution. Nevertheless, some people think these laws have failed and are proposing an alternative.

Members of the Sex Professionals of Canada (SPOC), a prostitutes’ rights group based in Toronto, with the help of a group law students and Professor Alan Young out of York’s Osgoode Hall Law School, have launched a constitutional challenge against these laws. Their central claim is that current laws place prostitutes in greater danger of physical violence, thus violating their right to liberty and security as guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Valerie Scott, executive director of the SPOC, claims that due to the laws in place since December 1st 1985, “there have been between 400 and 500 sex workers either confirmed murdered or missing in Canada,” and that this is because prostitutes “are forced to work alone — not in pairs, not in threes, alone — so no one knows what kind of car they’re getting into … they are alone with someone and no one knows where they are. As a result of this, the bodies are surfacing.” (CBC News)

A History of Prostitutes’ Rights

The prostitutes’ rights movement and “sex-worker feminism” today mostly advocates the decriminalization of prostitution. This means, simply, the removal of all laws and regulations surrounding prostitution. Prostitution is viewed as a choice, and the act of commercial sex itself is viewed as a transaction between consenting adults. The prostitute is said to be providing a necessary service or skill, making prostitution a type of work like any other. The discourse of decriminalization is often aimed at making prostitution seem as if it has always existed, or that it is “natural”. For example, the SPOC website claims “no government or religion in history, including the most repressive, (i.e. those that have the death penalty for prostitution, Iran, Afghanistan, etc.) have ever been able to eradicate our noble profession, for the simple reasons that money and sex are so much more powerful than governments and/or religions” (SPOC website) Decriminalization lets prostitution regulate itself, as opposed to legalization, which would require licensing or registration, health check-ups, special business taxes, and confinement to state-restricted areas. Decriminalization is also very business oriented, and as Valerie Scott once stated in an interview, “(the SPOC ) is primarily business people, and I find, while I love activists and academics, it is business people who tend to really get things done in this country” (The Flirt Show).
Prostitute activism has not always looked like this. Early prostitutes’ rights movements did not celebrate their “noble profession”, but saw it as arising from women’s economic and social subordination. Organizations established in the late 1970’s such as the English Collective of Prostitutes, wanted prostitution eventually abolished, saying, “we don’t want it for ourselves and our daughters” and “it’s not what most women who have done it, or who have never done it, want to do” (Jeffreys, 67). These organizations were also more focused on fighting police discrimination, for example, in Lyons, France, 1975, prostitutes occupied a church to protest their treatment by police (Jeffreys, 67).
But something changed, and the ideas of groups such as Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics (COYOTE), and today’s SPOC gained prominence. In the late 1980’s COYOTE’s Valerie Jenness, also a professor of criminology and sociology, became a major force in contending that prostitution was like any other service work, and that it should be decriminalized. At that time, Valerie Scott was the executive director of the Canadian Organization for the Rights of Prostitutes (CORP), and the group received a lot of media attention.

What is Wrong With Decriminalization?

Seeing prostitution as any other type of work seems to make sense at first, and the SPOC makes a strong case that the current laws harm prostitutes. Despite this, why is decriminalization a bad idea for Canada?
Prostitutes’ rights groups such as the SPOC have an erroneous view of what prostitution actually is, and fail to see that empirical evidence and realistic theoretical considerations indicate decriminalization will not make life better for prostitutes or women in general. Specifically, the view of prostitution as a choice made by women is false, and this can be demonstrated by examining women’s status in society, histories of sexual, emotional, and physical abuse, and human trafficking. Furthermore, decriminalization forgets that violence is intrinsic to prostitution, and ignores public health concerns. Myths about the “skills and services” offered by prostitutes, and the supposed safety of indoor prostitution will be exposed. Even the theoretical basis for decriminalization is flawed, and this can be shown by deconstructing erroneous views of human nature and the inevitability of prostitution, as well as by considering the issues of social stigma and normalization. Next, we will examine the results of decriminalization policies in New South Wales and New Zealand, and finally we will be set to propose an alternative: laws that see prostitution for what it really is – the right of men to rent women’s sexual body parts as the fundamental expression of social and economic inequality between men and women.
The position taken here is most often referred to by sex-worker feminists and liberal feminists as “radical feminism”, but there is actually nothing radical about this approach, and there is surely no effort to contain the argument within the canons of radical feminism. Instead, this is an attempt to avoid some of those generalizations of radical feminism that see prostitution as “female sexual slavery” (Barry, 1984). To be honest with ourselves, slavery is one thing, and prostitution quite another.

Prostitution is not a choice

Those who advocate decriminalization are quick to respond to this statement. They may say prostitutes enter into their “profession” freely, and that by saying “it is not a choice” it is I who debases them, objectifies them, and denies them agency in their lives. This type of rhetoric is used in sex-worker feminism to hide the evidence that indicates, indeed, that prostituted women do not have so much choice in their lives. Instead of seeing prostitutes as making the choice to be prostitutes – as if all other opportunities were available – we should see entrance into prostitution as a decision made in a context of economic and social depravity, sexual, physical, and emotional abuse, and human trafficking.
The simple facts of women’s economic and social subordination to men in Canada are too often forgotten; in the case of the SPOC, perhaps purposely forgotten to advance their cause. There is ample research showing that although more women are working today, working wives are often still expected to do the housework (Hochschild 2002), and are subject to various forms of subtle sex discrimination (Benokraitis 1997). As well, Canadian women who work full time for an entire year earn only 73% of what similarly employed men can make (Krahn; Lowe, 190). Then, if we take wage discrimination and the gender-segregated structure of the labour market into account, it becomes obvious – women have fewer choices than men. Add onto this a history of abuse, or the experience of being trafficked, and these choices diminish even further.
Although sex-work feminism rejects any analysis that portrays prostitutes as victims, there is extensive evidence showing that prostitutes were often sexually, physically, or emotionally abused as children. Unless sex-work feminists want to introduce an element of willing participation in these abuses, we should see these prostitutes as victims of people and events that profoundly affected their decision to go into prostitution.
A study of 100 prostitutes in Vancouver, British Columbia, conducted in 2003 showed that 84% were sexually abused as a child (Farley et al 2003, 43). Another study of 45 ex-prostitutes in Calgary, Alberta, had similar results – 73% were sexually abused in their childhood, and 27% of this sample experienced intercourse during sexual abuse (Bagley, 446). Such disparaging statistics show up across the world - across nine countries an average of 63% of prostitutes were sexually abused as children, with 57% of prostitutes in the United States reporting sexual abuse as a child, 48% in Germany, 66% in South Africa, 67% in Columbia, 47% in Thailand, 84 % in Zambia, and 54% in Mexico (Farley et al 2003, 43). Of 123 survivors of prostitution at the Council for Prostitution Alternatives in Portland (Oregon, U.S.A), 85% reported a history of incest (Farley; Kelly, 44). These studies also show that sexual abuses were inflicted by an average of 4 perpetrators (Farley et al 2003, 43). It is significant for our purposes to point out that incidences of childhood sexual abuse for prostitutes in Canada are quite high.
Many prostitutes were also physically abused as children. 73% of prostitutes in the Vancouver study reported being hit or beaten by a caregiver until they were injured or bruised (Farley et al 2003, 43). In the Calgary study 62% reported being physically abused (Bagley, 446). In the Portland study, 90% reported the same (Farley; Kelly, 44). Across the nine countries mentioned, the average rate of physical abuse as children is 59% (Farley et al 2003, 43). In a study conducted in the Netherlands, where prostitution is legalized, 40% of the prostitutes reported being physically or sexually abused in childhood (Farley et al 1998, 420). Again, the rates for Canada are high compared to rates across the world.
Rates of verbal abuse, parents with drinking problems, past homelessness, and other problems are also high for prostitutes across the world. In the Calgary study, 67% reported emotional abuse, 44% had parents with a drinking problem, 80% left home by the age of 16, and 15.5% were in foster care or group homes (Bagley, 446). In the Vancouver study, 86% reported a history of homelessness or current homelessness (Farley et al 2003, 43).
It should be clear that these abuses are a significant factor in guiding women’s decision to enter prostitution, and I challenge any sex-worker feminist to find similar rates of such abuse in any other “profession”. Decriminalization will sanction these abused women’s entrance into the sex trade. What good is that?
Furthermore, when women are trafficked into Canada to be prostitutes their decisions are certainly constrained. Sex-worker feminists deny this, arguing that real feminists “need to listen to third world women, including sex workers and trafficking victims and act in support of their expressed interests” (Sullivan 2003, 75). Sex-worker feminists also claim that the radical feminist anti-trafficking campaign is racist and neo-colonialist (Sullivan 2003, 75). The evidence simply does not support these claims. A Canadian study that included interviews of 20 trafficked women, 15 agency personnel, and 15 key informants concluded that the conditions of recruitment, migration, and employment were deplorable, and characterized by exploitation, strict control, deceit, physical danger, and eventually hopeless entrapment in the sex industry (McDonald et al, 64-65). Moreover, the study asserts “poor economic and political conditions in the women’s home countries were cited by the (interviewees) as being the major reasons for migrating” (McDonald et al, 65).
Many women who come to Canada to work in the sex trade go through non-official agents who arrange travel documents, transportation, and jobs on arrival. Most of these women pay steep fees of $15,000 to $45,000 for this service – which has to be repaid in prostitution before they can earn any of their own money (Sudthibhasilp, 2002)
Interestingly, in a study of trafficked Russian women, Kleimenov and Shamkov reported that “a woman who chooses to go abroad to work in show business realizes the potential danger of such a decision. She takes the risk because she hopes she will either have control of the situation or be lucky” [emphasis added] (Kleimenov; Shamkov, 40). Women who are trafficked into Canada seem to have neither of these.
The Coalition Against Trafficking in Women reported that in one Toronto area sex-slave ring bust, about twelve 16-30 year-old Asian girls and women were being trafficked into Canada each week on visitor’s permits and sold into brothels where they were forced into $40,000 debt bondage (Hughes et al, 1999). In another instance, strip clubs located in Toronto and Montreal were implicated in hiring women as foreign exotic dancers, but then putting them into prostitution, coercing them into having abortions when pregnant, taking their passports, and holding them in seclusion when they were not performing (Hughes et al, 1999). In “New Directions in Research on Prostitution”, Ronald Weitzer claims that studies of sex trafficking are full of “inflated figures and anecdotal horror stories” designed to incite moral panic about the possibilities of an existing sex-slave trade (Weitzer 2005, 229). But to make this claim it would be necessary to give evidence that suggests women have good, or at least neutral, experiences being trafficked into prostitution, and so far there is no evidence for this. In any case, it is certainly unclear how, in the cases and studies above, these women could have made the choice to be in prostitution. In situations where the women were deceived into entering prostitution we cannot even say that they made a conscious decision.
We should also consider Melissa Farley’s study of prostitutes in nine countries, which confirmed that 89% of her respondents (699 of 854 respondents) wanted to get out of prostitution (Farley 2003, 51). And out of the 100 Canadian women Farley interviewed, 89 of them wanted to leave prostitution (Farley 2003, 51).
Therefore, to say that prostitution is a choice is incorrect since it does not consider the economic subordination of women in Canada (and around the world), prostitutes’ histories of sexual, physical, and emotional abuse, and the issue of trafficked women. Kathleen Barry finds it odd that we condemn child pornography and child prostitution, while prostitution has become “a form of work and an expression of sex for women” (Barry 2003, 451). None of these are choices, and prostitution cannot be called a “choice” if the women with the fewest choices are the ones most often found doing it. The SPOC does not get this. While Valerie Scott was executive director of the Canadian Organization for the Rights of Prostitutes (CORP), she stated, along with Ryan Hotchkiss and Peggy Miller, that “most of us end up taking jobs where there are certain compromises made”, and “we don’t think any woman should be forced to work as a prostitute any more than any woman should be forced to work in a factory or forced to be a lawyer or doctor, for that matter” (V. Scott et al, 207). But there is a difference between the course of life that takes me to medical school and the one that takes me into prostitution. One is often filled with sexual abuse, physical abuse, and neglect, and the other usually is not.

Violence is intrinsic to prostitution today

The SPOC believes that decriminalization will lessen the violence committed against prostitutes, and sex-worker feminists generally feel the same way. The argument goes that women will be able to work together, indoors; will be able to hire security personnel and others (who would otherwise be susceptible to the procuring law) to make their workplace safer. As well, prostitutes will be more likely to report offences committed against them to the police, because they will no longer fear discrimination or charges.
First, there is no evidence to show that indoor prostitution is any safer than outdoor prostitution, and second, violence is intrinsic to prostitution, and decriminalization cannot change this.
Those who claim indoor prostitution is safer have some statistics to back their claim, for instance, in a Canadian study of street prostitutes vs. escorts it was found that: 37% of the street prostitutes had been robbed compared to 9% of the indoor prostitutes, 37% of the street prostitutes were sexually assaulted compared to 9% of the indoor prostitutes, and 39% of the street prostitutes were beaten, compared to 14% of the indoor prostitutes (Weitzer 2005, 216) Similarly, in a British study of street prostitutes and indoor prostitutes it was found that 47% of the street prostitutes were slapped, punched, or kicked compared to 14% of indoor prostitutes, and 22% of the street prostitutes were raped compared to 2% of indoor prostitutes (Weitzer 2005, 216).
There are two problems with making an argument for decriminalization based on these statistics: first, there is an assumption that decriminalizing prostitution leads street prostitutes indoors – for example, in “Prostitution: A Critical Analysis of Three Policy Approaches”, Frances Shaver asserts that “there will be much less street prostitution once the bawdy house provisions are repealed” (Shaver, 500). But no research has been able to demonstrate this. In places where prostitution has been legalized, such as the state of Victoria in Australia, and the Netherlands, illegal street prostitution expanded. In New South Wales, Australia, where prostitution is decriminalized, certain areas, including the lower class suburb of Islington, have had to deal with a “plague of prostitution in the street” (Scott 2004, 450). The simple fact is this: if prostitution is decriminalized in Canada, street prostitutes will not have to worry about getting harassed by the police, so they will be out there. Some prostitutes also prefer the streets. They believe that brothels restrict their freedom to choose which men they will accept, or do not want to give up their wages to brothel employees (Hoigard; Finstad, 593). Remember, in a brothel it is possible that a prostitute does not only have sex to pay herself, but also to pay other brothel employees.
Second, although statistics on indoor prostitution show less violence against indoor prostitutes, it is still more violence than most people would be willing to accept at their workplace. It is unlikely that we would find 2% to 9% of hairstylists were raped or sexually assaulted at work, or that 14% of computer technicians were beaten on the job. But when the information is framed the way it usually is, we tend to accept it.
Sex-worker feminists, while aware of the dangers faced by prostitutes, deny that violence is somehow intrinsic to the sex trade. Weitzer believes that sweeping claims like this are not supported by empirical studies because “customers vary demographically, demographically, attitudinally, and behaviourally” (Weitzer 2005, 212). He points to a major study of more than 2300 arrested customers which showed that most of the men rejected rape myths and other rationalizations for violence against women; therefore, “there is no reason to believe that most customers are violent” (Weitzer 2005, 213). He also claims that prostitutes’ self-conceptions are not consistent with the claim that violence is intrinsic to prostitution, rather, prostitutes do it “out of satisfaction with the control it gives them over their sexual interactions” (Weitzer 2005, 213).
First, studying prostitutes’ self-conceptions is probably not the best way to determine whether violence is intrinsic to prostitution. Second, it is for sure that most customers are not violent. But why not ask prostitutes about their experiences?
73% Of prostitutes in the nine countries studied by Melissa Farley reported being assaulted in prostitution, and 57% reported being raped (Farley 2003, 43). In her Canadian sample, 91% reported being physically assaulted in prostitution, 76% reported being raped, and 67% percent of those raped reported being raped more than five times (Farley 2003, 43). In the Portland study, 70% of the women reported being raped in prostitution, 65% reported physical assaults by customers, and 66% reported being assaulted by their pimp (Farley; Kelly, 16). In a study conducted in the Netherlands in the mid-nineties, 60% of the prostitutes suffered physical assaults, and 40% reported “sexual violence” (Farley; Kelly, 16). In a study of San Francisco massage parlours, 62% of Asian women reported being assaulted by customers (Farley 2004, 1094).
Sex-worker feminists have an easier time showing that johns can be good people. In Good Girls / Bad Girls: Feminists and Sex Trade Workers Face to Face, current executive director of the SPOC, Valerie Scott, along with Peggy Miller, and Ryan Hotchkiss are very sympathetic towards johns, saying “you want … to be sensitive to his needs as a person. He’s a person. He’s not a fucking animal – he’s a person. He may just need to be held, he may just need you to act out some fantasy” (V. Scott et al, 209). In fact, they claim to be “the only feminists around” because they are the only ones listening to men: “we think whores are more conscious of feminism from a healthy perspective than most other feminists. The reason is that we’re constantly interacting with men and conscious of where they’re coming from, so in that sense we’re really hearing them” (V. Scott et al, 210). In response, Sheila Jeffreys sharply chides, “liberation ideologies do not usually arise from listening intently to the oppressor” (Jeffreys, 83).
Whether prostitution is conducted indoors or out, it makes no difference. The evidence indicates that violence is intrinsic to prostitution today.

Prostitution is a public health concern

The decriminalization of prostitution is also a public health concern. Sex-worker feminists resent this assertion, and point out that prostitutes are not responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections. They are partially correct, since most of the evidence indicates prostitutes are only highly diseased in places where there are overall high rates of disease and low rates of condom usage. But there are other considerations: how violence and coercion affect prostitutes’ health, street prostitution, post-traumatic stress disorder, and the sheer number of johns that prostitutes have sex with.
In Farley and Kelly’s “Prostitution: A Critical Review of the Medical and Social Sciences Literature”, they point out that “after two decades of research on HIV, the World Health Organization noted that women’s primary risk factor for HIV is violence” (Farley; Kelly, 36). And we have already seen the evidence for how many prostitutes are raped or sexually assaulted. As well, some johns pressure women into unsafe sex or physically assault them when they do not get their way. Farley points out that extremely risky sex acts can always be purchased. 73% of prostitutes in a U.S. study reported that men offered to pay more for sex without a condom, and most men expected oral sex without a condom (Farley 2004, 1110).
Much of the evidence suggests many street prostitutes are addicted to drugs or alcohol and are less likely to use condoms. And since we have already concluded that street prostitutes will not disappear with decriminalization, we can cite a study of over 600 street prostitutes in Los Angeles County – 47% of them reported one or more sexually transmitted infection in the last six months (McKeganey; Barnard, 577).
Sex-worker feminists often overlook post-traumatic stress disorder as a valid health concern. Among prostitutes in the nine countries studied by Melissa Farley, 68% had post-traumatic stress disorder (Farley 2003, 47). 74% of Canadian prostitutes were diagnosed with PTSD (Farley 2003, 47).
In addition, prostitutes have sex with so many men that condom failure must eventually occur. In the Calgary sample of prostitutes, 20% reported that they had over 100 men a week, 67% reported that they had between 50 and 99 men a week, 11% reported 25-49 men a week, and 2% reported 8 to 24 men a week (Bagley, 448). It is no wonder then that studies show up to 49% of prostitutes and 16% of johns have had a condom break during commercial sex (McKeganey; Barnard, 582).
Despite sex-worker feminists’ resentment of the assertion, decriminalized prostitution is a public health concern.

Prostitution is not a service, a skill, or a type of work like any other

Sex-worker feminists claim that prostitution is “sex work” in the sense that a woman is not selling herself, or renting her sexual parts, but is providing a service that involves special skill. For example, COYOTE’s leaders, St. James and Alexander, stated that “in reality, a prostitute is being paid for her time and skill”, and there is no real distinction between an hour of sex work and an hour of typing, acting, or any other type of work (Jenness, 405).
However, this is only true if they can demonstrate that a unique skill or service is fundamental to prostitution. They have some difficulty doing this. As Jeffrey’s incisively retorts, “the basic act that the average john wants to perform in her body … can be performed without the exercise of any special skills on her part”, and “just having an orifice” does not constitute a skill (Jeffreys, 167).
But perhaps a better way to argue that prostitution involves no special service or skill is to look at how prostitutes advertise. After all, if it is a service we should expect it to be advertised as such, and if it involves skill, we should expect these skills to be highlighted.

Mention of “skill”/ “service”

Escort Ads
6%
Massage Ads
16%

I took a 2007 issue of NOW Magazine, a Toronto weekly, and analyzed 251 escort advertisements and 122 erotic massage advertisements in the classifieds. Among the words or terms that were taken to indicate “service” or “skill” were adverbs that described the quality of sex, such as “amazing”, “extraordinary” “great”, “best” and others (see Appendix A). Allowing “best” is generous, because the word could also indicate that the sex provided is only better than what the competition has to offer. Words or terms that were discounted included adjectives such as “hot”, “gorgeous”, “young”, “18 (years old)”, “horny”, “classy and clean”, and others (see Appendix A), since none of these are skills. The results clearly demonstrate that advertising in prostitution has little to do with selling a skill or service.

Being the right race was more important than having the rights skills. 50% of the escort ads and 57% of the massage ads mentioned race. Age was also important, as well as which sex acts the prostitute was willing to perform, for example, “greek” (anal) and oral. Descriptions of the women (i.e.: “hot”, “petite”, “busty”, “long legs and spectacular ass”, “sex starved student”) were common, as were descriptions of women’s genitalia (i.e.: “hairy pussy”, shaven”, “tight”). The amount of time a prostitute was willing to spend with a john was rarely mentioned, and none of the ads mentioned experience, which we would expect to be an indicator of skill.
Those advertisements that did sell a service or skill, did so by saying their prostitutes were “orally gifted”, or could give an “extraordinary release”, etc. But by far, this study confirms the view of radical feminists – that prostitution does not sell a “service”, “skill”, or “time”. It rents out bodies, legs, breasts, vaginas, and asses, to men.

Sex-worker feminists’ theories are wrong

The theoretical basis for decriminalization is flawed, and this can be shown by deconstructing erroneous views of human nature and the inevitability of prostitution, as well as by considering the issues of social stigma and normalization.
Sex-worker feminists and those who advocate decriminalization often assert that we can never abolish prostitution because it is somehow “natural” and it is “the oldest profession,” etc. These feminists also tend to reassure us that prostitution does not have to be oppressive. For example, in Prostitution and the Case for Decriminalization, Laurie Shrage explains, “I have examined institutionalized and commodified exchanges of sexual services between women providers and their male customers in many different social contexts” and “I conclude that there are (or have been) places and times where exchanges of sexual services between men and women are (or were) relatively free of gender and class domination” (Shrage 2006, 240). But to find her evidence, we have to turn to an article she published much earlier, and it becomes clear that her examples are particularly weak, and sometimes peculiar:
1) A class of temple prostitutes in Babylon; all women, who had sex for, and on behalf of, gods and goddesses (Shrage 1989, 349).
2) Prostitutes in 15th century France who were “on good terms with priests and men of the law”, and therefore, “it was not too difficult for them to find a position as servant or wife”. In fact, “by the age of thirty, most prostitutes had a real chance of becoming reintegrated into society” [emphasis added] (Shrage 1989, 350).
3) The Etoro of New Guinea. Male Etoro children give oral sex to adult Etoro men, often their relatives. Their belief is that boys need to swallow semen to become men, “much like we believe that young infants need their mother’s milk, or some equivalent, to be properly nurtured” [emphasis added] (Shrage 1989, 350).
In the first example, “temple prostitution”, is often regarded as the origin of prostitution. Some ancient Babylonian societies actually thought of the gods and goddesses as dwelling in the temple, not as symbolically represented there (Lerner, 238). Regardless, all the prostitutes are women, so there can be no claim for gender equality here. In the second example, we can be sure that coming out of prostitution to become either a “servant or wife” is not an indicator of gender equality. And to say that prostitutes could be “reintegrated into society” naturally means they were not integrated to begin with. In the final and strangest example, let us be clear: we do not believe that “young infants need their mother’s milk, or some equivalent, to be properly nurtured”. We know it. And, if by “some equivalent”, she means baby formula, food, juice, water, or any other kind of sustenance – then we know babies need this. It is not a matter of belief. Shrage calls this Etoro practice “penis-feeding” and considers it an aspect of child-rearing – not sex; to call it sex, she says, would be ethnocentric (Shrage 1989, 351). If that is the case, then there is no reason why this should be considered, as she asserts it should be, a “sexual service”. In fact, both the first and third examples do not seem to refer to prostitution – commercial sex. Temple rituals and “child-rearing” techniques do not count.
Instead, Gerda Lerner argues that the beginnings of prostitution coincide with the beginnings of slavery: As slavery became an established institution, particularly through military conquests in the third millennium B.C., slave owners rented out their female slaves as prostitutes, and some masters set up commercial brothels staffed by slaves (Lerner, 247).
It is strange that so many academics still make the mistake of thinking prostitution is the oldest profession. The fallacy is obvious, because we must then conclude that it was the first profession - before agriculture, hunting, and gathering. Unless these things came before prostitution, a prostitute in a state of nature would have nothing to gain from selling her sexual services; men would have nothing to pay her with. No food, no shelter -nothing.
Another simple consideration: if there is any place or culture in history that did not have prostitution, then an argument for its “naturalness” can be undone (although it may be easier to send sex-worker feminists to a Mennonite, Hutterite, or Amish community today, and let them search for evidence of prostitution).
Albert Hurtado’s study (1996) shows us that prostitution among Natives before the colonization of North America was essentially non-existent. For example, before the Spaniards arrived, there was no prostitution in California. However, missionary reports indicate that it may have been started when four Spanish soldiers raped two Native women at the Al Corral rancherio, and tried to pay them off with some ribbon and a few tortillas (Hurtado, 59). The realization amongst Native women that selling sex could buy food and gifts became significant as Native encounters with Europeans deteriorated into starvation, war, and slavery.
Hurtado also describes the confusion about sex caused by the meeting of Plains Natives and white colonists. Some Plains Native women showed hospitality by sleeping with the new arrivals, and practiced ritual intercourse for the buffalo (Hurtado, 60). But Europeans interpreted Native sexual culture the only way they could - in a way that led them to believe sex could be purchased. And again, as the situation deteriorated, Native women began to prostitute themselves. Hurtado even considers the possibility that adopting prostitution “was an Indian attempt to reduce rapes and get control over those encounters” (Hurtado, 59). In short, prostitution was introduced to these Native cultures by Europeans.
Accounts of the Native societies in James Axtell’s The Indian Peoples of Eastern America: A Documentary History of the Sexes, showed that many tribes in the East were free-spirited when it came to sex. Sex before marriage was common, as were trial marriages, infidelity, and polygamy. There was simply no market for sex. Kissing was largely unknown (Axtell, 71), never mind prostitution.
Those who believe prostitution is “natural”; is the “oldest profession”, or advocate decriminalization under the assumption that it has always existed and can never be eradicated, have to contend with this fact: that it has not always existed, and therefore does not always have to exist. We should hope that Kathleen Barry is wrong in saying that to imagine a world without prostitution “is like imagining a world without slavery in the U.S. in the 1820’s” (Barry 1995, 316).
The SPOC and other sex-worker feminists also believe that decriminalization will reduce the social stigma and contempt of prostitutes. They are careful to frame the issue as one about “prostitutes” and not “prostitution” in general. This way, when a radical feminist argues against them, they can respond by claiming it is an attack against prostitutes; in fact, in most cases, and certainly in this one, it is a condemnation of prostitution as an institution.
Historically, there are very few cases where prostitution is not viewed negatively, and in places where prostitution has been legalized or decriminalized (we will examine these in detail later - see page 22), there is much to suggest that the stigma remains, or even worsens.
We should also be concerned that decriminalized brothels, exotic massage parlours, and sex spas will send the message that prostitution is here to stay – and based on what we have just discussed, this is definitely not the message we should be getting. Another message we are sure to get from decriminalization is that this is something women do – that is, unless anyone is willing to argue that there are as many male prostitutes for women as there are women for men. Even Laurie Shrage, who makes a case for decriminalization, agrees that stereotyping and job ghettoizing “are legitimate fears, and supporters of decriminalization have to consider how such outcomes might be avoided” (Shrage 2006, 245). She herself makes no such effort; in fact, no sex-worker feminist can demonstrate how the normalization of prostitution will benefit all women.
A question we can ask ourselves, to find out how we really feel about prostitution as a legitimate profession, is “would I want my daughter to be a prostitute?” Laurie Shrage, who has a young daughter, struggles with this question, but concludes, “although I would prefer my daughter to be a mathematician, pianist, or labour organizer, were she to seek employment in the sex trade, I would still want the best for her”, and “her choice would be less heartbreaking to me if the work were legal, safe, reasonably well paid, and moderately respectable” (Shrage 2006, 246). This is certainly not how I would answer the question, having determined thus far that: 1) It is most often not a “choice”, per se; 2) it is not safe whether legalized, decriminalized, or criminalized, 3) it is not respectable whether legalized, decriminalized, or criminalized, and 4) prostitutes do not want to be prostitutes.

Decriminalization has been ineffective thus far

Last, to show how decriminalizing prostitution is bad for Canada, it is useful to examine the effects of decriminalization in other places. The SPOC is fond of pointing us towards the great successes of decriminalization in New Zealand and New South Wales, Australia. But these experiments are just beginning, and the results so far are not positive.
In 1995, the state government of New South Wales, Australia, decriminalized aspects of prostitution with the Disorderly Houses Amendment Act (Scott 2003, 287). This amendment decriminalized brothel prostitution, but gave local councils the right to approve brothel locations and supervise their activity. Both brothel and public prostitution are decriminalized, as long as they are away from churches, schools, hospitals, places frequented by children, and do not interfere with the amenity of the neighborhood (Sullivan 1997, 217).
There are many problems so far. By some estimates, the number of brothels in Sydney has grown by 200 - 300% (Scott 2003, 288). And Yellow Pages pages devoted to escort agencies and brothels has grown from 2 or 3 pages to beyond 24 (BBC News). While some sex-worker feminists might applaud this growth, they should also be aware that most brothels have been monopolized by consortiums of Sydney’s prominent accountants, lawyers, and restaurateurs, who have lobbied the N.S.W government to crack down on prostitution that threatens their investments, such as illegal street prostitution and cottage operations (Scott 2000, 288). As a result, street prostitutes are either hiding out in more dangerous and inaccessible areas or giving up their autonomy to work in a brothel. Meanwhile, brothel managers are more strictly enforcing certain work practices and health standards - something most sex-worker feminists would find invasive and restrictive (Scott 2003, 288). Places like the city of Newcastle and the suburb of Islington have had to deal with the immense growth of illegal brothel and street prostitution, prompting one prostitute to write to Newcastle’s city council, saying “if prostitution is legalized, why are you making it so hard for us to operate and earn a living?” (Scott 2004, 451). There are also many reports that activist local councils are using delaying tactics and other strategies to oppose the opening of brothels, and this has led N.S.W Premier, Morris Iemma, to announce that laws dealing with brothels may have to be changed in a way that allows councils to shut down brothels more easily (ABC News).
In May 2003, prostitution was decriminalized in New Zealand by a one vote majority in Parliament (Farley 2004, 1087). Some of the same problems as N.S.W are sure to surface. For example, the law would not have passed without a last-minute amendment that gave local councils control over where prostitution could happen (Farley 2004, 1092). This has caused a mess, with brothels and other operations being zoned into poorer neighborhoods, and conversely, pimps renting houses in suburban areas (Farley 2004, 1092). As usual, the explosion of prostitution operations has exceeded the councils’ ability to regulate.
Any evidence that the decriminalization of prostitution in N.S.W or New Zealand has lessened violence against prostitutes has yet to be seen. Nevertheless, it is clear that the SPOC and sex-worker feminists have not considered the host of other problems that come with decriminalization; therefore, we should search for other solutions.

An Alternative Approach for Canada?

Understanding the nature of prostitution, and knowing that arguments for decriminalization are flawed in so many ways, leads us to an alternative that cuts to reality – that the only way to end the violence in prostitution and the violence that is prostitution, is to do away with prostitution.
I understand that, for the time being, we cannot completely eradicate the sex trade, but there are ways to lessen the harm without decriminalization and normalization. On January 1st, 1999, in recognition that prostitution is essentially a form of violence against women, Sweden passed a law that decriminalizes the selling of sex, but criminalizes the buyer (Svanstrom, 241). The law also provides for extensive social services designed at getting women out of prostitution, and law enforcement training and awareness programs. The number of prostitutes in Sweden has reduced significantly, along with the number of women trafficked into Sweden. Police in Stockholm estimate that the purchase of sex in the city has dropped 90%, and that most of the women who remain on the street have substance abuse problems (National Board, 23). Social Services teams in Goteberg estimate that the number of prostitutes on the streets has dropped by two thirds, and in Norrkoping, all signs of street prostitution have disappeared (National Board, 24-25). Admittedly, the amount of hidden prostitution may be rising, but statistics on this are difficult to obtain. To target indoor prostitution, Swedish authorities rely on the vigilance of law enforcers and the extensiveness of outreach and social service programs for prostitutes.
The Swedish law is modeled after various projects undertaken in Sweden in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. The Malmo project, for example, gave prostitutes economic aid, assistance in finding housing, jobs, medical assistance, counseling and support, and protection from pimps (Barry 1995, 248). It was a great success, and over the course of four years, 72.5% of prostitutes in Malmo had quit, and of those who did not, many were drug dependent (Barry 1995, 249). From another perspective, in 1974 there were approximately 300 prostitutes in Malmo, and by 1981, there were only 60 known prostitutes left (Hoigard; Finstad, 607).
It is this type of action we should consider.

Conclusion

Sex-worker feminists and the SPOC have an erroneous view of what prostitution actually is, and fail to see that empirical evidence and realistic theoretical considerations indicate decriminalization will not make life better for prostitutes or women in general. Prostitution is clearly not just a choice, but a decision made in a context of poverty, sexual and physical abuse, neglect, and human trafficking. Decriminalization forgets that violence is intrinsic to prostitution, and ignores public health concerns. Furthermore, indoor prostitution is no better than street prostitution, and prostitution is not a special skill or service. The theoretical basis for decriminalization is flawed, and experiments in decriminalization have not demonstrated that decriminalization is the best policy alternative. A better policy alternative sees prostitution for what it really is - the right of men to rent women’s sexual body parts as the fundamental expression of social and economic inequality between men and women.

Appendix with primary research findings available on request.

Bibliography

ABC News. “N.S.W brothel laws under review”. Jan 21, 2007. Available: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/01/21/1830717.htm

Axtell, James (Ed.) The Indian Peoples of Eastern America: A Documentary History of the Sexes. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981.

Bagley, Christopher. “Adolescent prostitution in Canada and the Philippines”. International Social Work. 42: 4. 1999. 445-454.

Barry, Kathleen. Female Sexual Slavery. New York: New York University Press, 1984.

Barry, Kathleen. “Female sexual slavery: the problem, policies, and cause for feminist action”. Prostitution. Matthews, Roger; O’Neill, Maggie (Eds.) Burlington, VT: Ashgate/Dartmouth, 2003.

Barry, Kathleen. The Prostitution of Sexuality. New York and London: New York University Press, 1995.

BBC News. “Prostitutes gear up for Olympic sex”. Feb 1, 2000. Available: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/627012.stm

Benokraitis, Nijole V. “How subtle sex discrimination works”. Subtle Sexism: Current Practices and Prospects for Change. Benokraitis, Nijole V. (Ed.) Sage Publications, 1997.

Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women. Prostitution in Canada. March, 1984.

CBC News. “Sex trade workers challenge criminal code”. Mar 21, 2007. Available: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/03/21/sexworkers-challenge.html

Flirt Show – Show 32. “Prostitution: should it be legal in Canada?” Canoe Network. On-line interview. Nov 3, 2004.

Farley, Melissa. “Bad for the body, bad for the heart: prostitution harms women even if legalized or decriminalized”. Violence Against Women. 10: 10. Oct, 2004. 1087-1125.

Farley, Melissa; Baral, Isin; Kiremire, Merab; Sezgin, Ufuk. “Prostitution in five countries: violence and post-traumatic stress disorder. Feminism and Psychology. 8: 4. 1998. 405-426.

Farley, Melissa; Cotton, Ann; Lynne, Jacqueline; Zumbeck, Sybille; Spiwak, Frida; Reyes, Maria, E; Alvarez, Dinorah; Sezgin, Ufuk. “Prostitution and trafficking in nine countries: an update on violence and post-traumatic stress disorder”. Journal of Trauma Practice. 2: 3/4 2003. 33-74.

Farley, Melissa; Kelly, Vanessa. “Prostitution: a critical review of the medical and social sciences literature”. Women and Criminal Justice. 11: 4. 2004. 29-64.

Hochschild, Arlie Russell. The Second Shift. New York: Quill, 2002.

Hoigard, Cecille; Finstad, Liv. “The fight against prostitution”. Prostitution. Matthews, Roger; O’Neill, Maggie (Eds.) Burlington, VT: Ashgate/Dartmouth, 2003.

Hughes, Donna M; Sporcic, Laura Joy; Mendelsohn, Nadine Z, Chirgwin, Vanessa. “The Factbook on Global Sexual Exploitation”. Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, 1999.

Jeffreys, Sheila. The Idea of Prostitution. North Melbourne: Spinifex, 1997.

Jenness, Valerie. “From sex as sin to sex as work: COYOTE and the reorganization of prostitution as a social problem”. Social Problems. 37: 3. Aug, 1990. 403-420.

Kleimenov; Mikhail, Shamkov, Stanislav. “Criminal Transportation of Persons: Trends and Recommendations”. Human Traffic and Transnational Crime: Eurasian and American Perspectives. Stoecker, Sally; Shelley, Louise (Eds.) Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2005

Krahn, Harvey J; Lowe, Graham S. Work, Industry and Canadian Society, 4th Ed. Scarborough: Nelson, 2002.

Lerner, Gerda. “The origin of prostitution in ancient Mesopotamia” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society. 11:2. Winter, 1986. 236-254.

McDonald, Lynn; Moore, Brooke; Timoshkina, Natalya. Migrant Sex Workers From Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union: The Canadian Case. Centre for Applied Social Research, University of Toronto, 2000.

McKeganey, Neil; Barnard, Marina. “Prostitution and HIV/AIDS”. Prostitution. Matthews, Roger; O’Neill, Maggie (Eds.) Burlington, VT: Ashgate/Dartmouth, 2003.

National Board of Health and Welfare. “Prostitution in Sweden 2003”. Swedish government assignment. Socialstyrelsen, Oct, 2004.

NOW Magazine. Classifieds. Vol 26, No 41, Issue 1325. June 14-20, 2007.

Scott, John. “Prostitution and public health in New South Wales”. Culture, Health, and Sexuality. 5: 3. 2003. 277-293.

Scott, John. “Prostitution and public health in New South Wales: reply to Egger and Harcourt”. Culture, Health and Sexuality. 6: 5. Sept-Oct 2004. 447-453.

Scott, Valerie; Miller, Peggy; Hotchkiss, Ryan. “Realistic Feminists”. Good Girls / Bad Girls: Sex Trade Workers and Feminists Face to Face. Bell, Laurie (Ed.) Toronto: Ontario Public Interest Research Group, 1987.

Shaver, Frances M. “Prostitution: a critical analysis of three policy approaches”. Canadian Public Policy. 11: 3, 1985. 493-503.

Shrage, Laurie. “Prostitution and the case for decriminalization”. Prostitution and Pornography: Philosophical Debate About the Sex Industry. Spector, Jessica (Ed.) Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2006.

SPOC Website. “Decriminalization vs. legalization”. Available: http://www.spoc.ca/decrimlegal.html

Sutdhibhasilp, Noulmook. “Migrant Sex-workers in Canada”. Transnational Prostitution: Changing Global Patterns. Thorbek, Susanne; Pattanaik, Bandana (Eds.) London; New York: Zed Books, 2002.

Sullivan, Barbara. The Politics of Sex: Prostitution and Pornography in Australia Since 1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Sullivan, Barbara. “Trafficking in women: feminism and new international law”. International Feminist Journal of Politics. 5: 1. Mar, 2003. 67-91.

Svanstrom, Yvonne. “Criminalizing the john – A Swedish gender model?” The Politics of Prostitution: Women’s Movements, Democratic States, and the Globalization of Sex Commerce. Outshoorn, Joyce (Ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Weitzer, Ronald. “New directions in research on prostitution”. Crime, Law and Social Change. 43, 2005. 211-235.

Also available in probably a more readable format at http://gitnr.blogspot.com

Punch Much is another Muchmusic spinoff available through digital cable and satellite, and it happens to be a perfect metaphor for democracy today.

The idea is? that Punch Much makes a list of songs available by either watching the channel or going to their website, and from this list of songs, you choose what you want to see. Then, occasionally, and for no apparent reason, Punch Much throws in a song that nobody has voted for. Moreover, Punch Music shows commercials because it has to make a profit. Nothing can be democratic for its own sake.

Despite this, it? claims to be an “all-request” music video service station that “gives music fans the power”.

Therefore, Punch Much shares the following characteristics with “democracy”:

1) It gives you “choice” in a very limited context; most of what they offer is trash.

2) It occasionally and arbitrarily, “appoints” certain songs into its playlist, even though nobody has asked for this song to be there.

3) Its “you choose” philosophy is undone by the fact that there is a whole aspect of the program we have no say about whatsoever - the commercials, which represent the activities of business amongst a population that has no say.

4) It recreates itself in the language of true freedom by calling itself “all-request” and by claiming that it “gives music fans the power”, when in fact, similar to “democracy”, it makes appointments and gives us limited choice, and the? people are deluded as to the amount of power they actually posess.?

Nobody asked for Massari’s “Real Love”, the same way nobody asked for Condoleeza Rice to be appointed.

Canada has its own problem with appointments, particularly in the Senate, which is about to become Canada’s largest old-timers hockey team in history. I can’t wait until Wayne Gretzky gets appointed.

http://www.punchmuch.com

Up in cold, frigid, CAnada, where men and women slept huddled together in igloos and savagely cooked seal meat to stay alive, there once lived a giant pussy cat. His name was Stephen Harper, but he was so much of a special pussy cat that people endowed him with the nickname “Big Puss”. One day, Big Puss decided he wanted to run for Prime Minister of all the pussy cats in Canada. He came across during elections as the “ordinary” smiling Canadian pussy cat, without any hidden agendas whatsoever. As Prime Minister, Big Puss, vowed to keep government “Transparent”, and in the process chastised the previous government for its corruption. In good Canadian haste, we decided that a minority government with Big Puss as leader was the next best, or perhaps the next worst proposition.

Immediately upon his election, Big Puss started to prove some of his skeptics right, by outing himself as neo-con douchebag numero uno! Following up on his election promises, he decided that government is best “held accountable” by stealing spineless idiots from opposition parties, who are willing to abandon all responsibilities to the constituency which elected them and jump across party lines, to sit on the cabinet(see David Emmerson - minister of international trade/douchebag in training). Up next, a dose of neo-conservative style foreign affairs, starring Big Puss’s croonie, Peter Mackay (Minister of Foreign Affairs/douchebag numero deux). A western government isnt a government unless they make a stance on the long standing middle east conflict. After, certain painstaking internal “deliberation” they come to the conclusion that punishing the Palestinians in their attempt to exercise “democracy” was the best solution! Congralutions on that one guys, I ‘ll be sure to send you a gift certicate to the beer store, incase Alfred Nobel doesn’t awake from his grave to personally grant you the prize, for the effort.

The story of Big Puss, to be continued………….up next, SoftWood lumber, “Free trade” etc.

Check out this clip, courtesy of Conservative Party of Canada Pundit, Stephen Taylor… You heard me. Taylor runs a Conservative blog that is, for the most part, appropriately critical of the Liberal party.

Mike Duffy finally does something useful when he asks what in the world the Liberals were thinking when they made an ad saying Stephen Harper wanted an increased Canadian miltary presence in our cities.

When the face of my ex arch nemesis, Wendy Babcock, appeared on the cover of the Toronto Sun I think my first reaction was “well, she worked long and hard enough for the recognition”. But my next thought was “what the fuck is up with the Toronto Sun?”
For a paper that’s been so pro-Harper and anti-progressive, it was a big leap to write an article that clearly stood on the side of decriminalizing prostitution. I wondered when the Sun had started to give a shit about the plight of prostitutes. The article was clearly an attempt to prompt local MP’s and candidates to take a position on the issue.

With a little theoretical understanding we can see why the Sun, which normally takes the moralist right wing stance on issues, would suddenly accept the decriminalization of prostitution as a valid option:
The basest right wing philosophy, while expounding its moral superiority, advocacy of property rights, individual responsibility, and focus on the family, is after all the slave of business. Their philosophy is one which destroys itself. It lets the market reign, and then wonders why its families are being torn apart and why its people have become so self-centred.

And if one can see past the apparently humanist tone of the article they will see that the decriminalization of prostitution is nothing but a business solution. Valerie Scott, advocate for decriminalization and head of the Sex Professionals Of Canada (SPOC) once said, “This committee is very focused and primarily business people, and I find, while I love activists and academics, it is business people who tend to really get things done in this country”. (link)
This is exactly the line of thinking I outlined above. Business people certainly “get things done”, but it is input from academics and activists, and the dialogue we create as a community, that help us decide whether something is right.
When it comes to paying taxes, our self-proclaimed business woman notes, “We should pay at the same rate as any other small business owner.” There is not even an attempt to hide her business-oriented agenda.

Moreover, the SPOC makes no attempt at a real theoretical or moral argument, saying only that decriminalization would recognize prostitution as a “legitimate and necessary business”. They even sabotage whatever implicit moral argument they may have by adding “no government or religion in history, including the most repressive, (i.e. those that have the death penalty for prostitution, Iran, Afganistan, etc.) have ever been able to eradicate our noble profession for the simple reasons that money and sex are so much more powerful than governments and/or religions.” The idea being that we should then give in to the powers of money and our harmful sexual culture. The SPOC’s agenda has nothing to do with reversing the trend that makes money such a controlling factor in our lives, nor does it aim to curb the growing perversity of our sexual norms – it only aims to accept defeat.

The matter of prostitution’s “legitimacy” is subjective according to the government of the day, the law, and even the person. Its “necessity”, however, is completely disputable. If I can show you one community anywhere in the world or in history that has no prostitution (which I can), then any argument for its “naturalness” or “necessity” is invalid. Instead of seeing prostitution as a kind of pervasive human activity, we should see the trends that have allowed for its existence. Here is where prostitution has been, and still is, necessary:

Where there is social and economic inequality between men and women, where women have limited options for income or survival, and where male culture lends itself to the subordination and dehumanization of women.

These are the trends we must reverse. Instead of giving in to our failures, we should overcome them. After all, the only world that is safe for prostitutes is a world without them.
As for seeing Wendy in the paper, I am surprised she did not ask herself why the Sun had taken an interest in her cause. For a paper that has only had negative things to say about the homeless, our socialist mayor, the NDP, and the anti-war movement, it can only mean business.