HOOKER AND DOPE DEALER: MODERN CAREER CHOICES?

It's a big week for doublespeak in B.C. As North America's first "safe
injection site" opens in Vancouver, the city opens up another can of
worms with a proposal to create a new zone for home-based "sex-trade
workers".

These terms, "safe injection site" and "sex trade worker," are similar
in the way they distort public discussion. Each takes a questionable
opinion and tries to pass it off as a fact.

Is there any truly "safe" place to inject heroin or cocaine that has
been purchased on the street? No, of course there isn't, but these
days every media outlet says there is. And once the term becomes
established, anyone who opposes this approach is portrayed as opposed
to "safety".

"Sex trade worker" promotes the notion that prostitution is a
legitimate and acceptable way of making a living. There might be many
people who believe that, but it's still an opinion rather than a fact.

A contrary opinion was expressed in an open-line radio show on the
weekend. The caller suggested prostitution is no more a legitimate
line of work than drug dealing is. Both of these activities go on in
communities all over the country, but the discussion takes place
mostly in Vancouver, where it tends to be more obvious. Smaller towns
engage in a more subtle hypocrisy, keeping the prostitutes and drug
dealers from getting too visible so most people can pretend it doesn't
happen here.

Vancouver has reached the logical conclusion of the culture of
victimization. According to this belief system, prostitutes sell their
bodies because they are addicted to drugs, and addiction is a disease.
So "sex trade workers" will be among those who use the "safe injection
site".

Is it possible that people choose prostitution because it appears
easier than real work? Or that drug users choose to get high rather
than suffer the discomfort of quitting? Yes, it is.

Some of the comments I've received since last week's column on the
traditional marriage rally call for a follow-up.

A few readers were left with the impression that I'm a fundamentalist
Christian, imposing my personal views on the issue at the expense of
others. For the record, I can't claim to be a Christian of any sort,
although it's true that I am openly straight and legally married.

Assumptions are a big part of this sensitive topic. The protesters who
tried to disrupt the rally clearly assumed that anyone who
participated is motivated by hatred of homosexuals. As several readers
have pointed out, these demonstrators were the intolerant ones. It's
difficult to say whether they actually know or care anything about gay
rights, but it's pretty clear they think conservative Christians are
inferior to themselves. It's the demonstrators, not the rally
organizers, who could be accused of promoting hatred against an
identifiable group.

It's possible to support both sides of this debate. Homosexuals are
entitled to equal treatment under the law, as various judges have
found, and religious people also are entitled to the freedom to
believe what their faith teaches, including the idea that
homosexuality is a sin.

The real problem is that for historical reasons, "marriage licences"
are now issued by the provincial government's department of vital
statistics. That task should be given to churches, those that bless
same-sex marriages and those that don't, and the government should
keep track of those who qualify for "common law" status, whether they
choose marriage or not. The job of the government is to determine who
is eligible for survivor pension benefits, not to regulate the
harmless private choices of citizens.

Of course you may disagree with me on all of this, in which case you
may enjoy Rafe Mair's latest column, on page 33.